Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am asked, on behalf of the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the City and Royal Burgh of Dundee, to present a petition asking that the Government may see fit to continue till May, 1930, the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, as amended by the Act of 1923 and the Act of 1925, which last-mentioned Act expires in 1928; as the Petitioners are of opinion that housing accommodation is not such as would justify any other course being followed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wallasey Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH AIRCRAFT (FIRING).

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information showing that local Chinese headquarters have issued instructions to their soldiers to fire at aeroplanes belonging to the Shanghai Defence Force flying over strategic points; and whether any of these aeroplanes have been fired at and with what result?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): As regards the first part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply returned to the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) on 20th June.
The only instances of firing on British aircraft, of which I have any record, took place near Shanghai on 18th May, when the warship "Haichi" fired at two British seaplanes and on 19th May, when one seaplane was fired at by Cantonese troops. The result of this firing is not stated, so presumably no damage was done.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the instructions by the Chinese to fire at seaplanes or aeroplanes have been withdrawn?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not that I know of.

SIR FRANCIS AGLEN.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Francis Aglen still holds the position, though on furlough, of Inspector-General of the Chinese Customs and, in general, what are his present relations with the Peking Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Sir Francis Aglen still holds the title of Inspector-General. His present position is defined in the letter addressed to him by the Revenue Council on the 9th of February last. The following is a translation of the letter:
Sir,
This office is greatly indebted to you for the many years during which you have brought to the management of the Customs service your eminent sagacity and untiring zeal. Nevertheless, since you have repeatedly expressed the desire to return home, arrangements are now being made accordingly, in order to conform to your wishes.
In consideration of your honourable and distinguished services in the past you are allowed, as a mark of esteem, to continue for the period of a year in receipt of the treatment proper to the Inspector-General of Customs, and any observations you may from time to time have to submit will be appreciated.

REVENUE COUNCIL."

RUSSIAN DOCUMENTS.

Sir JOHN POWER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can arrange to publish, as a White Paper, copies of the more important Russian documents obtained in the course of the recent raid in Peking?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The original documents are in the possession of the Peking Government, and are being published by them, with English translations, in instalments, three of which have now appeared. Copies of these have been supplied to us by the Peking Government. The documents have been quoted in the British Press, and have also been republished by an unofficial organisation, the Tientsin British Committee of Information. His Majesty's Government do not propose to republish them as a White Paper.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Do not these documents definitely prove that in 1925 and 1926 enormous quantities of ammunition were being sent into China by Soviet Russia, with the concurrence of Borodin?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think it will be a good plan—and I propose—to put a copy of each of these documents in the Library of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: May I ask whether, owing to the importance of this matter and the desirability of spreading this information, the Government will not reconsider the matter and have copies printed so that they can be circulated to all Members of the House?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It would be quite unprecedented to lay a White Paper of a document belonging to another Government. I have already said I will have copies of these documents published by the Chinese Northern Government put in the Library of the House.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the action of the Russian Government was also of an unprecedented nature, and cannot we have the information that it is necessary that we should have?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the former reply regarding the export of munitions from Russia into China, is it not the case that this country under the Coalition Government spent £100,000,000 fighting against Russia without declaring war?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question concerns a former Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the number of British subjects in Russia; and whether, in view of the state of feeling in that country towards Great. Britain, he has any ground for apprehension regarding their personal safety?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am informed that there are at present approximately 400 British subjects in the whole of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As regards the second part of the question; His Majesty's Acting Chargé d'Affaires before leaving Moscow received an assurance from M. Litvinov that British subjects remaining in Russia, would not be interfered with.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

INTERNATIONAL RELIEF UNION.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has decided whether it desires to support the establishment of an international relief union in connection with the League of Nations; what powers it is intended to confer on the union; under what situations it is expected to operate; what the cost of the administration will be; and how it will be met?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government have made it a condition of their acceptance of the scheme that it secures practically unanimous support from the States members of the League. The points raised in the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question will doubtless come up for decision before the Conference when it meets.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is it the case that India and New Zealand have refused to have anything to do with it?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Will there be an opportunity of discussing the matter here before a final decision is taken?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down any further questions on this subject.

ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (TARIFFS).

Mr. HARRIS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of the Government to the proposal of Germany and other countries that the Council of the League of Nations should recommend their respective countries to take action on the Report of the recent Economic Conference at Geneva in favour of a general reduction in tariffs?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The British representative at the Council of the League stated that His Majesty's Government had been favourably impressed by a first but rather hasty study of the conclusions of the Conference, and he thought he could say that probably it was in agreement with by far the greater number of them, if not with all. In view, however, of the importance and number of the recommendations made by the Conference, His Majesty's Government considered that the Report required careful study before it would be safe for a country, which did not wish to pledge its word and afterwards qualify it, to give unqualified assent. He therefore proposed that the Report should be recommended to the favourable consideration of the Governments concerned.

Mr. HARRIS: Does this unsympathetic reply rather suggest that the Government do not think that much good will come out of this Conference, and does not the hon. Gentleman realise how urgent the matter is, with the cost of living raised all over Europe?

Mr. R. HUDSON: I should like to ask whether it is an unsympathetic reply?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is exactly what I was going to say. I should have thought my answer was very sympathetic, and if the hon. Gentleman will read it over, I think he will see that it is sympathetic.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the sympathetic reply been sent to the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I suppose my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will see it.

Sir H. CROFT: Will my hon. Friend continue to give most careful attention to this change of heart, and will he do everything in his power to emphasise the disastrous effects of these increasingly Protective tariffs on the Continent of Europe?

ALBANIA (ITALO-YUGOSLAV RELATIONS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can indicate the policy taken up by the British Government, more especially with regard to its reference to the League of Nations, towards the dispute over Albania between Italy and Yugoslavia?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the very full general statement on Italo-Yugoslav relations in respect of Albania and on the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards them which was made by my right hon. Friend on 2nd May in reply to a number of questions on the subject by the hon. Members for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby), Newcastle Central (Mr. Trevelyan), and Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). The policy of His Majesty's Government is still governed by the considerations set forth therein.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. KELLY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of civilian employés of the Admiralty engaged on the work of constructing the Singapore base; and whether any of these employés were sent out from this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The number is 931, of whom 13 were sent from this country.

Mr. KELLY: Were the 13 who were sent out of this country sent out in a supervisory capacity?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They were of a superior grade to the men working out there.

NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to obviate the pollution of the sea, it is proposed to employ a special barge equipped with oil separating plant, similar to the one now available for service at Portsmouth, at each of the naval bases?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Various types of plants have been and are being considered. Pending further experience the question of the employment of special barges at each of the naval bases has not been settled.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it the practice for naval ships to discharge oil within the 50 miles limit under the Board of Trade Regulations?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, it is not the practice.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What is done to avoid it?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The oil is taken out to sea according to Board of Trade Regulations.

"NELSON" AND "RODNEY."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the cost, £7,000,000, of the warships "Nelson" and "Rodney," if he will state the amount of money which has been paid to the designer, the costs of materials, including steel plates, armour, gun turrets, boilers, casts in electrification, including ring mains, etc., and guns, mechanism, wireless installation, etc.; and the amount of salary and wages paid to men actually engaged upon the construction of these two ships, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The "Nelson" and "Rodney" are contract-built ships, and the orders were placed on the basis of tenders at fixed prices. The amounts paid by the several contractors for materials and in salaries and wages are consequently not known at the Admiralty. A sum for establishment and incidental charges on these ships, assessed on the basis customary in Admiralty accounts, is shown in the programme of shipbuilding appended to the Navy Estimates, 1927, as an addition to the direct costs, and this sum includes
provision for designing costs at the Admiralty as well as for other expenses such as oversight; but the actual cost of the time spent by Admiralty officials on design work for these ships has not been separately recorded.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

BLUE ENSIGN.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the Regulations governing the concession to British merchant ships to fly the Blue Ensign?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The main conditions on which the Admiralty insist before granting a warrant to a merchant ship to fly the Blue Ensign are that the commanding officer should be a retired officer of the Royal Navy or Royal Australian Navy or an officer of one of the Royal Naval Reserve Forces; and that the crew must in addition contain eight officers or men with similar naval or Naval Reserve qualifications. The Regulations in full are contained in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, Article 126. I am sending my hon. Friend a pamphlet on the subject.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is an officer serving in the Navy during the War entitled to the same privilege?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should like notice of that question.

Commander WILLIAMS: Does it contain any regulation that the bulk, at any rate, of the seamen must be British-born subjects?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will do the same to my hon. and gallant Friend as to my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley); I will send him a copy of the pamphlet.

SEAMEN (HOURS OF DUTY).

Sir BASIL PETO: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that at the meeting of the governing body of the International Labour Office, held at Geneva on 28th January last, the proposal that the hours of duty of seafarers should furnish the subject of discussion at the next International Maritime Conference was opposed by the representative of the British Government, whether he will state whether
before this policy was decided on by the Ministry the different parties interested in the question were consulted, especially as regards the navigating officers of British merchant ships; and, if such was the case, will he state the parties consulted?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The point under discussion at Geneva was in substance whether an international discussion of hours of labour at sea should precede or should follow national settlements, and the view of His Majesty's Government was from the nature of the case that national settlements must come first.

Sir B. PETO: Do the Government object to the issue being raised?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, the position is that they do not object——

Sir B. PETO: They are not opposing it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No; what they said was that the proper order was for national settlement to come first.

JOINT MARITIME COMMISSION (REPRESENTATION).

Sir B. PETO: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the masters and navigating and engineer officers of British merchant ships have no representation whatever on the Joint Maritime Commission of the International Labour Organisation, which confines itself to discussing and dealing with many questions of importance and concern to ships and seafarers; and whether he will consider the desirability of ensuring that the organisations which represent officers of British ships should be represented on this Commission?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is the fact that masters and officers of the British Mercantile Marine are not directly represented on this Commission. The representatives on the Commission of shipowners and seamen are elected by the employers' and workers' delegates respectively who are present at maritime sessions of the International Labour Conference, and it is not, therefore, in my power to ensure the representation of any particular interest.

Sir B. PETO: Is it not a fact, therefore, that the officers of the British merchant service are not represented at all—not only not directly represented, but not represented at all; and, in view of the fact that under the two-watch system, they serve far more arduous hours than even seamen, is it not right that their views should be put?

Sir R. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, is he not aware that there has not been a single dispute between the shipowners and the Sailors' and Firemen's Union for the last quarter of a century?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: There is something wrong with that statement.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am very glad to hear that information, of which I was aware. As regards the supplementary question asked me by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I am afraid the matter is outside my competence. The question of the appointment was settled at the Genoa Conference, I think in 1920. If I remember aright, there is nomination by the employers and nomination by the workers, and whom they nominate is within their own competence to decide.

VENEZUELA (CAPTAIN BRINING).

Colonel DAY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to facilitate and expedite the trial of Captain Brining at Venezuela?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I cannot at the moment make a detailed statement regarding this case, which is still sub judice, but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that every possible step has been taken to expedite the trial of Captain Brining.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the last representations were made to the Venezuelan Government on this matter?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think I would like to ask the hon. Member not to press this question, because it might do more harm than good.

BLIND PERSONS (EARNINGS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the average earnings of employed blind persons amount only to about 10s. per week; that there is distress among the unemployed and unemployable blind; and whether he will institute inquiries into the matter?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. Such information as is available shows that the average earnings of employed blind persons are probably nearer 20s. than 10s. a week, and in all cases the earnings are augmented from voluntary or public funds according to the needs of the workers. As regards the unemployed and unemployable blind, it is the duty of the guardians to relieve destitution, but provision is made for many blind persons in this class by voluntary agencies and by an increasing number of local authorities; and old age pensions are available for blind persons at the age of 50. I see no reason for further inquiries into the matter.

Mr. HARRIS: Have not the local authorities power to set up official committees such as they have in London, and will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get them set up?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am always using my influence in that direction.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the reply to the original question, in which the Minister said that the average earnings of the employed blind are 20s. a week, does he not think that 20s. a week is a scandalous sum to pay a human being?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED (GLASGOW).

Mr. STEPHEN: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for unemployment benefit by men and women, respectively, at the latest available date at the various Exchanges in Glasgow, and the number of refusals in each case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the five weeks ended 13th June, 1927,
11,188 applications for extended benefit by men, and 1,790 by women, were considered by local employment committees in the Glasgow area. Of these numbers, 2,465 of the applications by men, and 683 of the applications by women, were recommended for disallowance. Corresponding statistics in respect of applications for standard benefit are not available.

SEASONAL WORKERS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the intentions of the Government with regard to the main recommendations of the Blanesburgh Report, more especially as regards seasonal workers and their position under the Unemployment Insurance Acts?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that I cannot at present add to the previous replies which I have given to my hon. Friend on this question.

Sir W. de FRECE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the Government will be able to give us some information?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Looking at the actual state of business, I should not think it would he possible to introduce this Bill before we meet again after the autumn holidays.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the interest in many quarters in the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee and the likelihood of the Bill following those lines, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider introducing the Bill before we rise in order that we may study it during the Recess? That is now a common practice of the Government.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider that, but I am not in a position to say whether I can do so. As I have said, broadly speaking, the Bill will follow on the lines of the Report, so that the hon. Member has the greater part of the information at his disposal.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Health and various other of his colleagues have adopted this procedure in regard to Bills of less widespread importance, would the right hon. Gentleman not consider following the practice?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question again.

MINERS, LANARKSHIRE.

Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Mr. SULLIVAN): 19.
asked the Minister of Labour to give the number of unemployed miners in the county of Lanark?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 23rd May, 1927, there were 12,211 insured persons classified as belonging to the coalmining industry, recorded as unemployed in the county of Lanark, including 2,372 temporarily stopped from the service of their employers.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister going to take any action in order to try and find these men work, because that is what the Employment Exchange was instituted for? Surely, that arises out of this question. He should be made to answer the question. [Interruption.] Is that what the Employment Exchange was started for? Are they going to get their money for nothing. [Interruption.] Why is there no answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: When an hon. Member asks a question, the Minister is not bound to answer a supplementary question which goes beyond his province.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. When you put down the Minister of Education to-day and said that that was a question that had been finished with, he rose up, and, at his own discretion, replied to the question. Surely we have a right to ask the Minister of Labour to reply to us on a question having a serious effect on the working classes in Lanarkshire?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member rises very frequently under these circumstances.

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION (BELGIUM).

Mr. KELLY: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of hours are set out as the normal working week in the textile mills of Belgium?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The normal duration of effective work in Belgium for industry generally, including the textile industry, is limited by law to eight hours a day and 48 hours a week. These hours may be exceeded in the case of preparatory or complementary work necessarily executed outside the hours assigned for productive processes, and in the case of
breakdowns. According to the reports of the Belgian factory inspectors, it appears to be a common, though not universal, practice in the textile industry to work an extra hour for cleaning, in addition to the 48 hours.

Mr. KELLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any report as to other breaches of this normal working week in Belgium?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I could not say that I have detailed information, because I have not really endeavoured to ascertain in detail how far the actual industry of each country comes directly up to the standard of 48 hours.

Mr. HARRIS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman find out through our Consuls how this eight hours' day is working?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, I am always making inquiries to get what information I can, but I am limited to a certain extent in the degree of information which I can get, and in certain circumstances I find it rather hard to obtain it.

Mr. RILEY: Is it not the fact that in Belgium the Washington Convention has been ratified, and that the general hours are 48 a week; and is it not a fact that in the West Riding of Yorkshire attempts have been made in the textile factories to increase the hours to 54 a week?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure about the latter question, and I am not sure that it arises out of the answer I gave. It is quite true that the Belgian Government has ratified the Convention, but I ought also to say that the Belgian law is such that, if we had a similar law, I am not at all sure that we should feel entitled on the strength of it to ratify the Washington Convention.

Mr. TAYLOR: At the conference last year between the representatives of Belgium and this country and other countries, was any complaint made as to the Belgian interpretation of the Convention?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that question ought to be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

KING FEISAL (ESCORT).

Colonel DAY: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of Royal
Air Force machines that were used as an air escort for King Feisal of Iraq on his return journey from Basra to Baghdad on 21st May?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The civil aircraft in which His Majesty King Feisal travelled was escorted for the first fifteen minutes of the journey by seven Royal Air Force machines, after which they proceeded on other Service duties.

Colonel DAY: Was the machine that King Feisal travelled over in one of the Air Force machines?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, it was one of the Imperial Airway machines.

LONG DISTANCE FLIGHTS.

Lord APSLEY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air, if he can now make any statement on the recent attempt of Lieutenants Carr and Gillman to reach India; whether the cause of the failure was due to fault of engine or structure; whether he is aware of the success all-metal monoplanes are having for long-distance fights in America and Germany; and whether similar designs are under construction for the Royal Air Force and Imperial Airways?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the damage which was sustained by the machine in hitting the water makes it improbable that the exact cause of the forced landing will ever be ascertained with certainty. The evidence available points to its being probably due to some temporary stoppage of the petrol pipe and not to any inherent defect in the construction of the aircraft or engine, which have both given excellent results under normal service conditions.
As regards the remaining parts of the question, I have noticed with interest the recent performances of all-metal monoplanes in long distance flights and their development has been carefully followed by the Air Ministry. Several types of all-metal machines have been built or are at present under construction in this country and some of these would be capable of carrying out long distance flights, but it cannot be assumed that the all-metal monoplane has been proved to be a type peculiarly suitable for the
general purposes either of the Air Force or of Air Transport undertakings.

Lord APSLEY: Is it not a fact that the designer of the Wright Company was an Englishman and formerly employed in the Farnborough workshop?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes Sir, it is true that this gentleman who assisted the Wright Company in developing the air cooled engine was an Englishman, and until 1919 was employed at Farnborough.

Sir W. de FRECE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give an approximate estimate of the cost of carrying out a trial aeroplane flight from this country to India; and whether a sum for purposes of this nature is set aside in the Estimates of his Department?

Sir P. SASSOON: In view of the miscellaneous character of the expenditure involved, I am not in a position to give an inclusive figure for the cost of the flight to which my hon. Friend refers. Flights of this character are undertaken as a normal experimental service in connection with the development of the range and endurance of service aircraft; no specific provision is therefore made for them in Air Estimates, but their cost is defrayed from the appropriate Votes.

AEROPLANES (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the dates on which the respective aeroplanes that have crashed this year and resulted in the loss of life of 27 members of the Royal Air Force were purchased; and whether he has any reason to believe that part of this sacrifice is due to the use of old and faulty machines?

Sir P. SASSOON: The average life of the aeroplane in question since the date of purchase or of reconditioning, which is equivalent to complete rebuilding of the aircraft, is one year and seven months. The oldest of these aeroplanes was less than four years old. Only two out of 18 were of war time design. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

CAIRO-KARACHI AIR MAIL LINE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Persian Government has now agreed to British commercial aeroplanes
flying over its territory on their journeys between Egypt and India; and whether the Cairo-Karachi air service has been resumed?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, there is nothing to add to the reply which, was given to the hon. and gallant Member on 25th May.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could the hon. Baronet inform me what steps have been taken to raise this matter with the Persian Government, and if it is being pressed by our representatives?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes Sir, it is being pressed by our representatives in the ordinary official manner. We are pressing it as much as we can, because the delay is a serious one, and meanwhile we are exploring other possible routes.

AIR WORTHINESS (CERTIFICATES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that, before a British certificate of air worthiness is issued for an aeroplane or seaplane manufactured abroad, it must be completely stripped for examination in addition to the usual tests and surveys; that this entails expense on a purchase and is sufficient to prevent, effectively such purchase in nearly all cases; and whether he will consider ordering a relaxation of this regulation in order that certain types of foreign aircraft may be admitted for experimental purposes by private individuals?

Sir P. SASSOON: As the answer is a rather long one, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. Baronet if he has considered the fact that improvements in designs of aircraft throughout the world are continuing, and that anything that hampers the latest designs being purchased and being brought to this country is an impediment to our advance?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir, we have no desire to do anything of that kind, but we have certain difficulties which the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows full
well. We hope that before long to get over those difficulties.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to press the hon. Baronet, but is he aware that the present regulations act as a deterrent, and as a kind of tariff preventing the most recent machines being brought over here?

Sir P. SASSOON: We hope to get over that difficulty before very long, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my main answer he will see what is being done.

Following is the answer:

British certificates of airworthiness are not issued in respect of aircraft manufactured abroad owing to the impossibility in their case of giving effect to the requirements of the Air Navigation Regulations concerning the approval of design and the inspection of workmanship and materials. The regulations, however, provide for the acceptance as valid in this country of certificates of airworthiness issued by foreign Powers, and as soon as the international minimum conditions governing the issue of certificates of airworthiness have been adopted by the International Commission for Air Navigation, such certificates issued by States who are parties to the International Air Convention will normally be rendered valid without question when the aircraft have been purchased by a British owner. Pending the adoption of these international minimum standards some physical examination of the aircraft is necessary before a foreign certificate can be rendered valid. Special permission may, however, under existing regulations, be given in certain circumstances for flight for experimental purposes in this country of foreign-built aircraft purchased by British subjects without their certificates being rendered valid.

DISPLAY, HENDON (SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Mr. GROVES: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the secretary of the Royal Air Force display committee has addressed a letter to the West Ham Education Department inviting organised parties of school children to attend the rehearsal of the aerial display at Hendon on Friday, 1st July, 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.; whether he will state whether this invitation is issued generally to the schools of London
and Essex: whether such has his consent as part of the educational training of the children; and whether he will take steps to revoke any order of approval on the grounds that attendance at such displays can be of no educational value?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am aware that such invitations have been issued to local authorities in the Metropolitan area. I agree with the view of the committee that the display may be both of interest and of educational value to the children, and I am not prepared to interfere in any way with their attendance at it.

Mr. GROVES: Is the Noble Lord aware of the widespread indignation, as expressed in various newspapers, resulting from the resolutions passed by education authorities in the Metropolis; and, further, is he aware that of recent years there has been in our schools a cessation of this militant patriotism, and does he not think, in view of the desire of the peoples of the world for peace, that this is a retrograde step?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord aware that the last item on the programme will be a scene representing the bombing of a native village, and could he meet the indignation specified by my hon. Friend by advising the authorities that children should leave before this last scene?

Mr. DUFF COOPER: Does not the Noble Lord consider that nothing is more likely to deter the young people of this country from admiration for war than to see the horrors of it, and the possibilities of horrors, as shown in this display?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: Would the Noble Lord tell us what educational value he considers there may be in sending school children to Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise; hon. Members are giving their own views.

Lord E. PERCY: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I am not aware of the conclusion of the Air Force display which he mentioned. I am certainly not aware that there is any indignation at all among local authorities, and I really think that
when children have a chance of seeing a display of this kind, neither the Board of Education nor Parliament ought to take up the attitude of a crotchety maiden aunt.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Noble Lord aware that the railings are put round the schools in such a manner as to familiarise the children with the idea of spikes—bayonets?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

OFFICE OF WORKS (SIR FRANK BAINES).

Lord FERMOY: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that civil servants in the Office of Works have undertaken work for private undertakings; whether he will state the magnitude of the contracts involved; and whether he is satisfied that the work will not interfere with the public duties of the civil servants involved?

Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): My Noble Friend has no doubt in mind the case of Sir Frank Baines and Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, referred to in the answers given to the hon. Memher for Tottenham, North (Mr. R. Morrison), on the 26th May.
I should like to take the opportunity of saying that no reflection rests upon Sir Frank Baines in this connection. He undertook the work in question for Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, in good faith after reporting the matter to the proper branch of the Department, which did not fully realise at the time the magnitude of the operation, and consequently offered no objection.
The undertaking has eventually proved to be on a very large scale, involving an outlay of some £870,000; and, while there is no suggestion that it has so far interfered with Sir Frank Baines' official duties, my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner feels that from the point of the public service the existing arrangement is not one which should continue.
The First Commissioner has anxiously sought a solution of the difficulty by way of Sir Frank Baines' withdrawal from his
outside undertaking; but Sir Frank, on account of obligations to the company, has not felt at liberty to adopt this course, and the company on their side have in fact declined to release him. He is therefore retiring on pension from the service on or about 1st September next; but the First Commissioner hopes that it may still be possible to secure his assistance in a part-time capacity in connection with the work of restoring the Houses of Parliament.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman having informed us, as I think we all agree, that Sir Frank Baines is not to blame, who is to blame for this incident?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Captain HACKING: I do not think full blame should be attached to anyone. It is a question of degree. Sir Frank Baines thought he could undertake this work without interfering with his official duties, but the First Commissioner is of opinion that the arrangement is not one which should be allowed to continue.

Sir F. HALL: Are Sir Frank Baines' duties of such a light nature that he can easily undertake duties of this magnitude without interfering with his ordinary duties?

Colonel GRETTON: Is it usual for a whole-time employé of the Government to take outside work, more especially work of a commercial or contractual nature?

Captain HACKING: If my right hon and gallant Friend will read the answer given on the 26th of May, he will see the conditions under which outside work is allowed.

Colonel GRETTON: Will the Government reconsider these Regulations, and take care that in the ease of employés in the Civil Service full time service is required?

Captain HACKING: So far as this Department is concerned we are reviewing the conditions.

EXPORT CREDITS GUARANTEE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to close down the Export Credits Guarantee Department and to
hand the business over to an existing credit insurance company; and, if so, whether the same facilities will be extended to exporters as are at present provided by the Department?

Mr. SAMUEL: The Export Credits Guarantee Department is empowered under Statute to give guarantees up to the 8th September, 1929, and, as at present advised, I do not contemplate inviting Parliament to terminate the Export Credits Guarantee Department's functions before that date. I have repeatedly expressed the hope that the experience gained from the work of the Department will facilitate the development of credit insurance by private enter prise; and I think it would be undesirable to close the Export Credits Guarantee Department down at present unless it could be shown that responsible institutions are ready to offer equivalent facilities for the insurance of credits granted by exporters. I may add that the Advisory Committee have expressed the same opinion.

STONEHENGE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that the land occupied by a Government aerodrome during the War, near to Stonehenge and, since its sale to private individuals, used for pig-breeding, is again on the market for sale, and that this land extending to 50 acres is now in danger of being bought for speculative building purposes with resulting disfigurement to the surroundings of the monument; how much is raised in a year by the entrance fee to Stonehenge itself; and whether His Majesty's Office of Works will consider purchasing the land adjacent to Stonehenge in order to preserve the amenities of this monument for all time for the people of the country?

Captain HACKING: The First Commissioner understands that the land which was occupied by the Government during the War but never owned by them is now for sale. He would regard it as a calamity if the surroundings of Stonehenge were disfigured in the manner suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but he regrets that, apart from financial considerations, his Department has no power
under the Ancient Monuments Act to purchase land surrounding monuments for the protection of their amenities. The entrance fees to Stonehenge produce on the average £1,400 a year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Under-Secretary aware that under a Bill which is now before Parliament the Minister of Agriculture has the right to re-invest the proceeds from the sale of certain Crown lands in other lands, and will he communicate with his colleagues with a view to the purchase by that means of this land which would be very suitable for a Crown holding?

Captain HACKING: Yes, Sir, I will certainly communicate with my right hon. Friend on that subject. This is really very largely a matter of finance, and I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that if he knows of anyone who is especially interested in this sort of work, or if he can induce some newspaper in the country to start a fund to acquire this land, the Office of Works would give full support and all the assistance within their power. They do realise the importance of this question and the desirability of retaining it for the purposes suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Does not that make it all the more desirable that the Crown Lands Office, when investing in land, should invest in areas which are of use for the public service; and is it not a fact that the Crown Lands Office has recently bought up large areas in some counties purely for investment?

Captain HACKING: I am afraid I cannot answer for the Crown Lands Office, which comes under the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

DISTRESS (RELIEF).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of cases of miners in a state of starvation; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent the recurrence of such cases among persons engaged in the mining industry?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): No, Sir; I am not aware of
such cases. The relief of distress is not within the powers or duties of my Department.

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention was not called to a case in Nottingham where a man was summoned for poaching rabbits and fined 15s., and his defence was that he and his wife were sitting round the hearth without anything to eat? Is he not aware that there are hundreds of cases of this kind in my own county where, unfortunately, they cannot poach rabbits, under similar conditions?

RECRUITMENT.

Sir J. POWER: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any and, if so, how many additional persons have entered the coal-mining industry since the end of the coal dispute; and if he can now state when the restriction of recruitment to the industry will come into operation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply. I regret that figures are not available showing the number of new entrants into the industry. As regards the second part of the question, negotiations with the parties have reached an advanced stage, and I hope will be completed shortly.

WATER SUPPLY (LEAD-BEARING STRATA).

Sir R. THOMAS: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information regarding the danger to public health in districts where the water supply is drawn from lead-bearing strata?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know of any district where there is such danger. Lead compounds are found in many different kinds of rock formation, but water naturally containing lead is very rare. Water which will act upon lead pipes is not uncommon, but precautions are taken where necessary.

Sir R. THOMAS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the impurity of the water from the Plinlimmon range?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me any information that he has?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether any decision was reached at the recent consultation of his Department with the Consultative Council regarding the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance that the scope of the benefit should be extended to include a consultant and specialist medical service, and that the necessary funds for this purpose should be obtained by a partial pooling of future surpluses of approved societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet received from the Consultative Council any expression of their views on the recommendations referred to by the hon. Member.

CASUAL PAUPERS.

Mr. FENBY: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to establish labour colonies for the accommodation and reclamation of casual paupers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received certain suggestions in the direction suggested in this question, and the matter is under consideration. I do not think it will be practicable to formulate concrete proposals until some measure of Poor Law reform has been secured.

Mr. FENBY: 46.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any evidence that boards of guardians are complying with the circular of his Department suggesting that casual paupers should be periodically medically examined?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The suggestion which I made was that a medical officer should periodically inspect the casual wards, and should do so, if practicable, at a time when he could also see the casuals, so as to satisfy himself that they are free from disease. I have not received any special reports of the extent to which this suggestion has been put into practice, but I have no reason to suppose that it has not been effective.

NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Mr. HARRIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has a free hand to negotiate with the other Powers concerned for disarmament; whether there are any limits to his discretion; and whether, if an agreement is arrived at, such agreement will be subject to the confirmation of the House of Commons?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The delegates from this country will act on lines approved by His Majesty's Government. They have been given the usual latitude in regard to matters of detail, but will refer to His Majesty's Government on any large question of principle. It would be premature to make any statement on the last part of the question until the form of the agreement is known

Mr. HARRIS: Will the First Lord have the same powers which Lord Balfour had at Washington?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it is easier to answer the question directly than by comparison, and I have already answered it directly.

ROYAL ENGINEERS (MRS. CAMERON).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the decision made in the case of Mrs. Cameron, widow of the late Colonel Cameron, Royal Engineers; whether he is aware that a lieutenant's widow's pension was offered to Mrs. Cameron and was declined by her; that Mrs. Cameron was married to Colonel Cameron 30 years before his death; and that she is left with seven children, several of whom are dependent upon her?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): I am aware of the facts of this case, but I regret that there are no grounds which would justify an alteration of the decision arrived at. The lady's claim is not admissible under the terms of Article 671 of the Royal Warrant for Pay.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that this case, where the lady was married to an officer for 30 years, might be treated as special and outside the Regulations?

Commodore KING: It was done before the Regulations were altered, and that is why this lady has a reserved right to a lieutenant's pension. The Regulations were changed while her husband was still serving as a lieutenant.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. HARRIS: 48.
asked the Postmaster-General when the first instalment of the automatic telephone will be ready for use; what is likely to be the cost per telephone installed in London; and whether he is likely to further extend this system?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): A large number of automatic telephone exchanges are already working in the provinces. It is hoped to open the first automatic telephone exchange in London during the coming autumn, two others by the end of the year, seven more during 1928, and a large number during succeeding years. The cost of providing telephone service depends largely on the calling rate and the character of the traffic. It is not possible, therefore, to give a representative general figure. Automatic plant involves considerably greater capital outlay than manual equipment.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not this system likely to prove very costly in London, owing to the very large range of calling that is available—much more so than in the provinces?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, I do not think that that is so. It is already working in the provinces in very large areas.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the exchanges which will be converted during the year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The first will be Holborn, then Bishopsgate, and then Sloane. That is as far as this year is concerned. The first three next year will be Western, Monument, and, I think, Bermondsey.

Commander WILLIAMS: Could the Postmaster-General say where this system was first installed, and where it is working most successfully at the moment?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I could not answer that question without notice.

Colonel DAY: Are any tests being taken on the Holborn exchange, as the telephones are now being fitted all over the area?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, Sir; testing is going on all the time.

Colonel APPLIN: 49.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the number of extra trunk lines established during the year 1926, and the number of miles of cable purchased by the telephone department of the Post Office during this period?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: 951 additional trunk circuits were brought into use during 1926, and 390 miles of trunk cable, comprising 67,753 miles of single wire, were purchased and laid.

Colonel APPLIN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the cable manufacturing companies in the London district has discharged 75 per cent. of its staff in consequence of lack of orders for cables?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was not aware of those precise facts, but I know there is unemployment in that industry.

Colonel APPLIN: 50.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the delays in trunk calls between London and the West of England due to lack of direct wires; if he can give the number of cables or lines between Exeter and London; and whether steps are being taken to increase these?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not aware that under normal conditions trunk calls between London and the West of England suffer undue delay. There are three direct circuits between Exeter and London. This number is adequate for the present traffic, but provision has been made for additional cables to meet future growth.

Colonel APPLIN: 51.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the whole of the surplus of £550,830 earned by the telephone
service is to be devoted to extending the system; and how much he proposes to return to subscribers in the form of reduced charges?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. Extensions of the telephone service are provided for by means of loans raised under the Telegraph Acts. Last year approximately £11,000,000 was spent on telephone capital works. In proportion to the total revenue, the present surplus represents no more than a working margin, and I am not in a position to contemplate reductions in the tariff.

SHORT STAPLE COTTON (IMPORTS).

Sir FRANK NELSON: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of bales of short staple American cotton imported into Great Britain during 1926, as compared with short staple Indian cotton?

Mr. SAMUEL: The official trade returns divide the imports of raw cotton into two categories only namely, "of 1¼ inch staple and over," and "under 1¼ inch staple." The imports of raw cotton (except linters) under 1¼ inch staple from the United States in 1926 amounted to 10,626,000 centals of 100 lbs., and those from British India to 670,000 centals of 100 lbs.

Sir SYDNEY HENN: Could my hon. Friend give the House his own interpretation of the phrase "short staple"?

Mr. SAMUEL: I did find some difficulty in interpreting the word "short." In India, short staple cotton—and the bulk of Indian cotton is short staple—means under ¾ inch. As regards America, there is very little short staple cotton; it is mostly middling, that is to say, ⅞ inch to 1¼ inch. For that reason, I framed my reply on the lines used by the Trade Accounts.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.

Sir F. NELSON: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if any decision has been reached in principle as to the proposals for long-term agricultural credits that he will in due course submit to the House; and when he will be in a position to submit his proposals in detail?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question addressed to me on 16th May by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Maldon Division of Essex, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that agriculturists have been waiting 18 months for the Government to carry out its pledges with regard to this matter? It was urgent then, and it is more urgent now. Will he do something to hasten it?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is no possibility of legislation this Session, but we are losing no time in pursuing negotiations which will, we hope, enable us to legislate later.

Mr. LAMB: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the great urgency of the matter in view of the publicity which has been given recently to the bad state of agriculture and consequently to the calling-in of loans?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid the recent publicity is interfering with the credit of agriculture, but we have no control over that, and this long-term credit is not, of course, aimed at that problem in any way.

Colonel GRETTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean before the Adjournment or before the end of the Session.

Mr. GUINNESS: I said that there was no chance of legislation this Session

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount in sterling of the last payment to the United States of America on account of our external debt due to them?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The cost of the interest payment made to the Government of the United States of America on 15th June, 1927, was £13,822,495.

CHEQUES (STAMP DUTY).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would
be the estimated annual addition to the revenue were cheques for amounts below £2, with a stamp of 1d. upon each, introduced?

Mr. McNEILL: The cheque duty of 2d. applies to all cheques irrespective of amount, and the reduction of this duty to 1d. for cheques below £2would involve a substantial loss to the Exchequer, the precise amount of which I am unable to state.

Viscount SANDON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is expected that the proposed test case in the Courts, with reference to Stamp Duties on small cheques, will be taken in time for an Amendment to be made to this year's Finance Bill; and, if not, whether such an Amendment will be included in any case as a safeguard?

Mr. McNEILL: Some considerable time must elapse before the final decision of the Courts can be obtained. My right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to propose any legislation in the mean while. As appears from a statement which he made a short time ago upon the matter, and which appeared in the Press, the Midland Bank has voluntarily arranged to stop the issue of the documents which are the subject of the test case.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (GRANTS, SCOTLAND).

Mr. STEPHEN: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in connection with the grant of £1,000,000 to the Empire Marketing Board, what sum has been allocated to protect the interests of home producers in Scotland, and the direction in which this sum is being spent?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The following grants have been made or promised by the Empire Marketing Board for various services affecting Scottish administration:

(i) A sum not exceeding £800 to the Scottish National Milk and Health Association for a survey of the production and utilisation of milk and milk residues.
(ii) A sum not exceeding £2,850 to the same Association for feeding experiments with children.
1854
(iii) Salary and allowance for a period of four months to a Professor of the West of Scotland Agricultural College seconded for the purpose of conducting a survey of dairy research within the Empire.
(iv) A sum of £10,000 to the Rowett Institute for research into problems of animal nutrition throughout the Empire.
(v) A sum of £6,000 to the Rowett Institute for a collateral inquiry into human nutrition covering Kenya Colony.

In addition to the foregoing grants for the following purposes have been provisionally sanctioned:

(i) Research in poultry nutrition at the Rowett Institute.
(ii) Animal breeding research at Edinburgh University.
(iii) The establishment of a quarantine station in connection with the export of pedigree stock in Glasgow on the same lines at the station comtemplated for London.

It will be appreciated that much of this expenditure, although incurred in Scotland, is intended to be of benefit to Empire Trade as a whole, and that on the other hand a very considerable proportion of the remaining expenditure of the Board, whether on advertising or on research, is directly beneficial to the home producers in this country either exclusively or in common with the producers in overseas parts of the Empire.

Mr. HARRIS: Has anything been done to advertise Scotch mutton and Scotch oats in the same way as New Zealand butter and Australian meat?

An HON. MEMBER: And Harris tweeds!

Mr. RILEY: Do not the items read out relate to research and not to marketing at all, and is not the granting of sums for that purpose rather a misappropriation of money available for marketing?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is clearly laid down by the Economic Committee that the main effort is to be on research, and it is the scientific development of the resources of the Empire and better marketing to which we are devoting the greater part of our energies.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: if Scotch mutton is to be advertised, I hope Exmoor mutton will be advertised too.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

ENCOUNTER WITH SOMALIS.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Report has yet been received of a conflict with Somalis in the district of Nyeri, in Kenya Colony; whether he can say if this conflict was due to the seizure of Somali cattle by the police; and what casualties resulted from these hostilities?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information beyond Press reports, which show that the encounter arose out of Government measures to prevent the spread of cattle disease, that the seizure of some of the Somali cattle was for the purpose of carrying out those measures, and that the nomad Somalis were the first to fire. Statements as to casualties are conflicting.

Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get authentic information?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, we shall certainly get information.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope this is not another Jameson raid.

Mr. THURTLE: The right hon. Gentleman says the statements as to casualties are conflicting. Will he tell us what those statements are?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I cannot offhand, but the newspaper reports are conflicting and we have had no official report yet. Here is an outlying district. The Somalis come from a considerable distance wandering with their cattle and if they are diseased they are a menace to native as well as European cattle. We have not heard any detailed accounts of the particular incident.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Are the natives compensated when their cattle are confiscated?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I shall have to have notice of that question. It depends on circumstances.

NATIVE AFRICANS (WAR MEMORIAL).

Mr. E. BROWN: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the War memorial
erected to the memory of native Africans who lost their lives in the War has remained veiled and derelict, covered with sacking now in a state of decay; and whether it is proposed either to unveil the memorial or to destroy it?

Commodore KING: I have been asked to reply. I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the memorial to native Africans at Nairobi. The Governor of Kenya has taken a special interest in this memorial and has asked that it shall be re-erected close to the general Cenotaph memorial in that town, in order that ceremonies on Armistice Day and other occasions may be conducted before both memorials. Owing to the fact that the new town-planning scheme is under consideration, a little time may elapse before the exact site for re-erecting the memorial is settled.

COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).

Viscount SANDON: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government are now prepared to undertake the promised readjustment of the basis on which the cost-of-living figure is calculated; and whether an investigation to this end is now proceeding?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am anxious that the basis of the cost-of-living figure should be revised as soon as circumstances warrant. There are, however, a number of considerations against immediate revision, and further, on consultation with the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations and the Trade Union Congress General Council, I find that they are both of opinion that the present moment is inopportune. I have decided, in all the circumstances, to postpone further consideration of the matter to a later date.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this cost-of living figure affects naval and military pay as well as workmen's wages, and that it is based on a set of items which are quite inappropriate to naval pay, which has just been reduced; and can he not have a special cost-of-living figure for this purpose?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think it is possible.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any re-adjustment of the basis will make all the figures perfectly useless for the purpose?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Does my right hon. Friend also consult the Admiralty when he consults the Trade Union Congress?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Consultation has taken place with nearly all Departments and other bodies who were concerned in the matter.

DAMS, EMBANKMENTS AND RESERVOIRS (INSPECTION).

Major OWEN: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes during the present Session of Parliament to introduce legislation dealing with the inspection of dams, embankments and reservoirs?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): A draft of a Bill is under consideration, but I cannot say at present whether I shall be in a position to introduce legislation this Session or not.

Major OWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Bill has already been introduced in the House and has had its First Reading and that there is no opposition to it from any side of the House; and will he give an opportunity for that Bill to be taken upstairs and passed this Session? It would take only a very short time.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I cannot. That is not within my province. The Bill to which the hon. and gallant Member refers has not passed its Second Reading, and it cannot go upstairs until it has done so.

Major OWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Government to give facilities for the Second Reading of that Bill? It has been brought forward several times.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Government cannot find time for the Second Reading of all Bills. The hon. and gallant Member was unlucky in the Ballot, and he merely brought in a Bill which was read a First time in the
ordinary way. If it had been read a Second time, it would have gone before the Committee.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very serious disaster involving about 20 lives occurred three years ago, and that succeeding complaints have been made to his Department as to the condition of other dams in the same district, and have any steps been taken by him for the protection of life?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am fully aware of the facts, as the hon. Member knows, and I have drafted a Bill to deal with the matter. It is before the Cabinet now. The question is: How much legislation can we get through this Session?

Major OWEN: This Bill, which I introduced at the end of last Session, had the approval of the House on the First Reading. It again received the approval of the House and received a First Reading this Session. It will take only a very short time upstairs in Committee to pass this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: This seems like a speech.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Major RICHARD ERIC ONSLOW LONG, for the County of Wilts (Westbury Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Southern Railway Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Hove." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hove Extension) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Abersoch Water Company, Limited, to construct and maintain water works; and to supply water in part of the County of Carnarvon." [Abersoch Water Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm the construction of certain waterworks by the Corporation of Bedford and to authorise them to construct further waterworks; to confer powers upon the Corporation in regard to their water and electricity undertakings; and for other purposes." [Bedford Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the City of Coventry; and for other purposes." [Coventry Corporation (Boundary Extension) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the Borough of Sunderland; to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough to construct a quay and other works; and to provide and work omnibuses; to make further provision with regard to tramways and electricity and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Sunderland Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend Saint Mary's Hospital (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) Act, 1888, and certain schemes made thereunder; and for other purposes." [Hospital of St. Mary the Virgin (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Salford to execute street improvements and acquire lands; to confer further powers upon them with reference to the running of omnibuses and to their tramway and electricity undertakings; and for other purposes." [Salford Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Ouse Drainage Bill,

That they coneur with the Commons in their Resolution "That it is expedient that the Ouse Drainage Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HOVE EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Abersoch Water Bill [Lords],
Bedford Corporation Bill [Lords],
Coventry Corporation (Boundary Extension) Bill [Lords],
Sunderland Corporation Bill [Lords],
Hospital of St. Mary the Virgin (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) Bill [Lords],
Salford Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 74.]

Bill, as amended in the Committee, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

As amended, further considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Prevention of intimidation, etc.)

Mr. OLIVER: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
Unlike the other two Clauses which have been disposed of, this Clause applies to legal as well as to illegal strikes, and, in consequence, makes it more necessary on the part of the Government to look with greater carefulness into the Clause in order to see quite clearly that they are doing nothing which will penalise the workmen unduly. As the first two Clauses deal with illegal strikes, it may be a very long time before we have an opportunity of testing them, but this Clause deals with legal strikes, and consequently it is of the greatest importance, in view of the fact that it may be tested very early, almost as soon as the Bill has left this House. We oppose this Clause because we believe the existing law adequate to meet all contingencies that have arisen in the past and are likely to arise in the future. On the 30th August of last year, the Home Secretary told us exactly what was the existing law in regard to picketing and the rights and duties of pickets. He said:
If a person 'watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works or carries on business' it is a criminal offence to-day, and if a number of men persistently beset the house of a miner who desires to work, and watch his house from time to time, watching him going in and watching him going out, that is an offence under the law as it stands to-day.
He also told us in the same speech:
Under the old Act, any form of violence or intimidation is illegal. If a man uses violence, or intimidates a person who wants to work, or his wife or children, he is, under the Act of 1875, guilty of an offence. If he 'persistently follows such other person about from place to place' he is guilty; or if he hides his tools, and so on, he is guilty of an offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th August, 1926; col. 20, Vol. 199.]
The right hon. Gentleman, in the same speech, after paying a great tribute to
the miners for the peaceful way in which they conducted the dispute, said that booing was illegal. Consequently, the law as it stands to-day meets fairly fully the conditions which arise in trade disputes. Therefore, it comes very badly from hon. Members opposite to talk about their being opposed to intimidation, being opposed to booing, watching, besetting and mass picketing, when the Home Secretary as recently as last August made it quite clear that none of these things are legal under the existing law. Nevertheless, we have heard speeches, and no doubt we shall hear speeches to-day, trying to show why the country is opposed to intimidation, why men should not be followed, why they should not be threatened, just as if hon. Members opposite are the only people who are prepared to condemn that kind of conduct and that we on this side of the House are the only people who are prepared to condone that kind of conduct.
I hope that in discussing this Clause it will not be enough to talk about the right to intimidate. We do not want the right to intimidate. We disapprove of intimidation just as much as right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but this Clause goes further than consolidating the things that are already illegal. It practically makes picketing impossible. Those of us who have had some practical experience, in our early days, of conducting disputes, know exactly what this Clause would have meant had it been in operation in those days. Sub-section (2) says:
The expression 'to intimidate' means to cause in the mind of a person a reasonable apprehension of injury to him or to any member of his family or of violence or damage to any person or property, and the expression 'injury' includes injury other than physical or material injury.
The words which will make it difficult for picketing to proceed are the words
cause in the mind of a person a reasonable apprehension of injury. … other than physical or material injury.
Whilst these words are in the Clause it will be most difficult even for the most peace-loving individual to approach a man who is working during a dispute. If the words of the Clause were, "Words used which cause in the mind of the person, etc.," it would be clear. The Courts would have something to work on. The question would be, whether the
words used were likely or calculated to cause in the mind of the man some reasonable apprehension of injury to himself. That provision is not included; it is not merely the words that are to be considered as causing intimidation but even demeanour or glances have been put into the Clause to show that the man picketed had reasonable apprehension of injury, other than material and physical.
That makes it extremely difficult for any man to know precisely where he stands as a picket. One might approach a man and tell him that he voted for the dispute, that his complaint was the cause of the dispute, that his agitation laid the foundation for the dispute. The more truthful such a statement may be the greater will be the offence of the picket, because more occasion will the man have to fear injury to himself, other than material and physical, when the dispute is over. The more honest a man may be as a picket, the more sincere he may be, the more enthusiastic he may be in asking a man stop work the greater his risk, and on the other hand the greater the blackguard may be at work, the greater the difficulty will be, and the more likely are we to bring to the Courts honest, sincere men, while, on the other hand, we protect some of the biggest scoundrels. For that reason, I hope the Government will consider the nature of the persons who are being picketed and the nature of the persons picketing.
4.0 p.m.
I have met many men who have objected and do object to trade unionism. I can understand the man who says, "I do not believe in trade unions, I do not think they are in the best interests of the country, and certainly not in the best interests of the working classes." That man's position is understandable, and to that extent it is right to concede to him the right to his opinion, just as we expect our opinions to be respected. But I have yet to meet the man, however much he opposes trade unionism, who refuses to accept benefits which trade unions have obtained for him. I have never heard one who said, "I do not want to work the 47 hours or 48 hours the unions have got for me, nor do I desire to receive the same pay which the trade unions have got whether by disputes or negotiations." That position is
understandable, but in a trade dispute you have men who are fighting for their lives. Their very bread-and-butter is at stake, and, in consequence, the man who goes to work is a man who is helping to defeat them. That being the position, it is most difficult, unless you lay it down in the clearest possible terms what the law is or will be when one man approaches another. A man may be working, and so doing his best to defeat his fellow-workmen, yet if his fellow-workmen win, he will be entitled to the proceeds of their victory, and if he remains in work and the workmen lose, the very fact that he has been at work is likely to stand him in good stead, in so far that the employer will give him a few shillings a week more in consequence of his conduct during the dispute. When that position obtains, you can understand the mentality of the parties, if you could only visualise that point of view, and realise that the men who are fighting are fighting for something in which that man will participate if they are successful, I think we ought to draw the line as clearly and fairly as we can, and not leave it in this vague way for a man to say, "I apprehend injury other than that of a material or physical kind."
I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is honest, because we are not legislating to protect ordinary people in this Bill. Whether it be a trade union or any other body, when a majority decision has been taken, whether it be in our clubs, professions or trades, the men who oppose the majority when they have had a right to try to influence that majority, are not looked upon with favour. This Bill gives a favoured position to that type of person. For that reason, I do not think it is fair, because none of these people are men of admirable character. If they were, we could understand the position, but they are not the best type of men. They are not the men who have made the institutions of which we so often boast in this country. The men whom this Bill designs to hit are some of the finest of our people, men who have worked to bring down the unlimited hours of 20 and 30 years ago to something like hours of reasonable proportion, men who have agitated to bring about industrial betterment which has preceded industrial legislation as we understand
it in this country, men who have tried to bring some order into the industrial lives of our people, where hitherto chaos reigned. Those are the men whom this Bill will hit, and hit severely, unless something be done, and this particular objectionable Clause be deleted. On the 30th August last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary very rightly said that the miners' dispute was the quietest trade dispute this country had ever witnessed. Furthermore, we had the finest demonstration and manifestation of the peaceful character of the men and women of this country. Despite that fact, I am not exaggerating when I say that there must be thousands of men who stopped work on the 1st May last year, miners in particular, who have never returned to industry since.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Why?

Mr. OLIVER: It is not because they have been intimated by their fellowmen. It is because they are intimidated to-day by their employers and kept out of a job, and will be kept out of a job as long as the employers can do so. They have been victimised, and we know it. I was rather amazed to read in a publication of the Tory party called "The Democrat," published by Odhams Press, Limited, Long Acre, London. In it there is an article

THE WORKERS' CHARTER OF FREEDOM.

PROTECTING BRITISH DEMOCRACY.

SIR DOUGLAS HOGG EXPLAINS THE TRADE DISPUTES BILL."

And the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:
The Clause makes it clear that threats of any kind are illegal, whether they take the form of threats of personal violence or whether, as is too often the case, they are threats to drive the worker out of employment for the rest of his life, to terrorise his wife and children, and to make their existence intolerable.

There are thousands of men driven out of industry for no other reason than that they tried to do what the coalowners did. They tried to win a battle into which they were forced. The coalowners posted their notices, and because the men resisted, and resisted stubbornly, they, their wives and families for over 12 months, have been out of employment
victimised by the coalowners. I ask the Attorney-General, does this Clause safeguard these people, and prohibit them from being victimised with their wives and families? If not, it shows quite clearly that it is a Clause directed exclusively against the trade unionist who is fighting to win for his men.

There is another point. In Nottinghamshire, in a constituency that borders mine, the only crime that some men have committed is the crime of loyalty to the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association. Because they refuse to leave the Nottinghamshire Miners' Association, and join the new non-political, or what is colloquially called the "Spencer," union, men who have given 40 years' service to build up their organisation are threatened and dismissed. Is this Clause designed to prevent intimidation of that character? Is it only to deal with intimidation against the blackleg? Is it only victimisation when the trade unionists are concerned, and is no protection to be given when the trade unionists are assailed? That seems to me precisely the position as this Clause lays it down.

We oppose this Clause, not because we are in favour of intimidation. The existing law, in our view, is absolutely adequate to meet the needs, as was so well stated by the Home Secretary last year. We oppose it because of its unfairness. The most fair-minded man, the man who is picketing with the best intentions in the world, under this Bill, because he approaches and creates in the mind of the blackleg an apprehension of injury may be sent to gaol for three months. How that is going to be determined, God alone knows. The Bill does not say. It is not by what the picket says; it is by anything which the blackleg likes to draw in as apprehension of injury of some kind which is likely to happen in the future, not necessarily of a physical kind, but also of a moral kind. I think the Clause as drafted is dangerous, unfair, and calculated to do injury to some of the best men that this country has yet produced.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
The justification for this Amendment is to be found in the Report of the Proceedings of the 24th May, when the Home Secretary attempted to define what Clause 3 meant. I have been endeavouring
in my mind to find out the, connection between Clause 1 and Clause 3. To my mind Clause 1 is a sieve in the hands of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General with which to try to sift the illegal from the legal strikes, and the particles that escape through the sieve permitting legal strikes are then dealt with by Clause 3, which puts a broom into the hands of the Home Secretary, who at once sweeps away those fine particles that have escaped Clause 1. There is not the slightest chance to carry on a legal strike now, even if it passes Clause 1, if the law of picketing in Clause 3 becomes effective. Let us see what the Home Secretary defines as intimidation, and one wants to realise the mentality of the right hon. Gentleman. He tells us what the old law did in regard to personal violence, and he goes on to say:
The thing I am putting is much more subtle and unpleasant than a threat of personal violence. Suppose a man comes and says, 'Look here, you are one of those blacklegs'—I use that expression, putting in the mouth of somebody else—'you will not come out; you are sticking in and ruining the solidarity of the trade union movement. I know how I can get at you. I am not going to threaten personal violence to you, that is old-fashioned, but I know very well that you have a son working here and a daughter working there. I will go round and see if I can get them sacked.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1927; cols. 1880–1, Vol. 206.]
Does the Home Secretary really believe that the working man has the power at any time to do that? The pickets are the kind of men who have no connection at all with the employers. They have no interest with the employers to get anyone sacked, and to think that we have any men in our ranks who can go to a blackleg and say, "I will get your son or daughter sacked from their employment" does not understand the views of the workers. We would never think of doing it, and, in fact, have no opportunity of doing it. The Attorney-General, three days before, used the same kind of language. He was speaking at Manchester, and it seems that great minds think alike, because he used similar expressions. He said:
Intimidation had been defined by law, but there were effective threats other than threats of personal violence. There was the threat that a man who continued to work would be prevented, when the strike was over, from getting work again.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has certainly not understood the mentality of our movement if he thinks we have any such power. If that be the object of Clause 3, it goes to show that there is not the slightest chance of any picketing taking place at all. I want to go a little further. If this Measure dealt with employers in the same way there might be something to be said for it. This is what happened during the lock-out last year. The employers went down to our workpeople and told them that unless they went back to work their places would not be available for them afterwards. I suppose the answer of the Government will be that they will deal with the employers as they are dealing with the workmen; but the employers have a thousand ways of getting at the men and using all kinds of intimidation. He may send his representative round to tell the men what is going to happen if they do not go back to work. In the mining industry two-thirds of the workers are on piece work, and in any mine there are seams where a worker can get 2s. or 3s. a day more than in other places.
During the lock-out of last year the employers told our people that if they went back to work they would put them on the best places in the pit, but that if they did not then there was no chance of them getting back to work when the lock-out was over. These are the kind of threats and intimidation which should be dealt with. You cannot get at the employers, whereas in the case of the men the most peaceful methods of persuasion may be used, yet they can be taken before a magistrate and sentenced. On several occasions during last year's lock-out fresh policemen were drafted into a neighbourhood; why I do not know, unless it was for the purpose of sending a certain class of policemen to help the employers. Under this Bill you give this particular class of policeman certain powers when he sees two of our people interviewing a blackleg. If they say anything that can be construed as intimidation, he will be able to deal with them, and he will deal with them in such a manner as will prevent anything being done at all. It may be argued that he can only go to a certain length. Suppose two men interview a blackleg, a policeman comes along and says, "This must not take place, you
are intimidating this man." He can put it to the man himself, and he can take the two men into custody if the man has a reasonable fear or apprehension of injury. If he says he is afraid of what will happen, the policeman can arrest the two men and have them tried by a Court. It means that effective picketing breaks down entirely. It means that when we come to allocate our men to the various spots, there is not one who will take up the duty. They will say that it is impossible and useless, and that they will at once get into the hands of the law.Peaceful picketing will be no longer in existence when this Measure is passed. We have always looked upon this kind of thing as our right. We have always considered it our right to interview people and put our point of view before them, and if you prevent that you are loading the scales very heavily against the workers. In addition, you will be letting loose the worst type of man in our movement. The pickets are drawn from our best men, those who can reason with their fellow members, and if you prevent that class of man interviewing the men who are breaking away you will let loose another class of person who will go outside the law altogether.
We want to be reasonable with the blackleg; we know that he is ill advised and that if the proper point of view is put before him he may not go to work. If you prevent us doing that, then you are doing an ill-service to our movement and to the public generally. Can anyone take exception to what happened last year? Millions of men were involved in a struggle and a strike and yet there were very few who were convicted. It is a wonder indeed that the workers kept so quiet. One would have expected that the Government would have been satisfied with the experience of last year. The way in which they conducted themselves during that strike was most creditable to the workmen. The Home Secretary said that he did not feel any animosity, that it was remarkable how the peace was kept and that he had sufficient powers to deal with any out-break which might occur. What is the reason for this Measure? Is it for the purpose of still further crippling the powers of the working-class movement? We think it is, and we are asking the Government to consider the position
which will arise if this Clause is passed. I can only put one interpretation upon it, and it is this, that it is for the sole purpose of preventing any connection whatever between the leaders of trade unions and those people who are breaking away. If that indeed is the intention behind this Clause, I shall be glad if the Home Secretary will say so definitely. If it is not, then the Government should withdraw the Clause and allow the present law with regard to picketing to continue; it is quite effective.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: On Wednesday we held a conference at Taunton of Somersetshire Conservative trade unions——

Miss WILKINSON: How many did you get?

Mr. PETO: At the end of the meeting the first vote among many that was passed was one strongly approving of this Bill and thanking the Government for it. The Clause which was most discussed at that conference was Clause 3, dealing with intimidation, and the only doubt expressed was whether the Clause as drafted is strong enough. We were urged to see that there was no weakening whatever on the part of the Government on this matter, in fact we were asked to do what we could to strengthen the Clause. I, therefore, strongly oppose the Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has spoken about victimisation by the employers. This Bill deals with trade union disputes, and I do not see how you can compel an employer to employ certain persons any more than you can compel workmen to work for a certain employer. In those cases where men broke their contracts last year, no doubt induced by their leaders to do so, why should not the employers take back to work the men themselves rather than the leaders who misled them? Is not that common justice? Personally I hope that everybody will be taken back at the earliest possible moment in the Somerset coalfield, but I must say that I think the followers have more claim to be taken back than the leaders after last year's strike.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment also referred to the benefits conferred by trade unions and said that those whom he was pleased to call black
legs were quite ready to take their share of the benefits but objected to pay their subscriptions or strike whenever they were told. If he could see the present state of the Somersetshire coalfield compared with what it was before last year, he would realise the benefits which have been conferred by trade unions in that area. It has produced widespread distress, the miners are in a very bad way, miserably paid, employment is bad, and they are working an extra hour. For all this they have to thank the benefits conferred by trade unions. They were called out last year in support of a dispute in other parts of the country. The hon. Member then went on to say that this Bill favoured minorities; put them in a favoured position. Surely it is the duty of this House to protect minorities and I hope we shall always do so. I have not heard that the trade unions have thrown out the so-called minority movement, which apparently exercises considerable control in the trade unions. Why should the minority in a trade union who did not approve of a certain strike be penalised by the majority?

Mr. OLIVER: The hon. Member may be surprised to know that many people who voted for the strike have been blacklegs. How can you say that they did not approve of the strike?

Mr. PETO: I cannot say which way some of them voted, in fact most trade unionists are seldom consulted, they never have a chance of expressing their views.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is the hon. Member aware that according to the rules of the Miners' Federation no strike can be entered upon until a ballot has been taken and a two-thirds majority obtained for conducting the strike. Is he aware also that the last stoppage in the mining industry was a lock-out and not a strike at all, but the miners were consulted and their decision taken, except in one or two smaller coalfields?

Mr. PETO: The hon. Member says "except in one or two of the smaller coalfields"—that is the point I am discussing at the moment. It is not a, two-third majority of the members, it is a two-thirds majority of the people who happen to attend at the meeting.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Who take part in the ballot.

Mr. PETO: Yes, but it is not a mājority of all the members. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) asked whether anyone could take exception to what happened last year. Yes, strong exception is taken all over the country to what happened last year, and that is the reason for this Bill.

Mr. TINKER: Does the hon. Member say that the events of last year are a blot on the working men?

Mr. PETO: The event of last year is a considerable blot on the leaders of trade unions. There were a few individual blots. I agree with the hon. Member, in so far as he means that it was a comparatively small proportion of the large numbers involved in the strike, but at the same time very great exception is taken all over the country to the individual cases of assault and intimidation that did occur. The objections to this Clause in previous devious Debates seem to have taken three lines. First of all it is said that there is no intimidation and that it is an insult to trade unions and to trade unionists to suggest that there may be intimidation. With regard to that, all I can say is that a Somerset trade unionist said to me, "Suppose you had a strike of a strong trade union and you had promised to work, and considered it your duty to work, and considered that you were free to work, if you had to face the pickets of that union, you would realise what intimidation means and you would try to strengthen Clause 3 of the Bill." If there is no intimidation, or very little, I cannot see why the ordinary trade unionist should regard this Bill as an insult to trade unions or trade unionists. Thank goodness, there is very little murder in this country, but the ordinary citizen does not consider the laws against murder as an insult to him. He is thankful to think that in case anyone has a homicidal tendency, all people are protected from him.
Another line of argument is that intimidation is justified, that a blackleg is a sort of social pariah, and that no treatment that could be meted out to him would be too severe. I cannot conceive that that is a fair line of argument to
take in regard to any citizen. We are entitled to our freedom, we are entitled to work or not to work as we choose, and even a minority in a trade union must have its rights respected and protected against assault by the majority. Who are the trade unionists that they should condemn one man and call him a blackleg? He may be the only sane man in a particular district. I object altogether to this idea that irresponsible bodies which are not appointed to judge this nation should condemn men without trial, as is done in Russia. The man has no chance; he has no chance of appearing and being tried by this trade union body. The trade union body is not authorised by the State to try him. The Courts of the country are quite sufficient, and we do not want bodies outside them. The main line of argument against the Clause has been that intimidation is already illegal and that the present law is perfectly clear. I would like to read an extract from a speech made on 4th May last by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) on the Second Reading of this Bill. It struck me at the time as a clear proof that not even trade union leaders—I believe the hon. Member is a member of the Trade Unions Council—realise what the ordinary man in the street means by intimidation. This is the story the hon. Member told us on the Second Reading of the Bill. He was talking about the railway strike in 1911, and he said:
On that occasion I was a district officer at Manchester, and I went to Chester, where a highly respected engine man, in the first two hours of the strike, had given word to his superintendent that he would work a certain mail train. I went to see him, and he said, 'I am in a cleft stick. I want to do what my union tells me, but I have given word. What should I do?' In the first place, under this Bill my visit to that man's house would land me in gaol when this becomes law.
Of course, that is not so. Obviously, it was a very proper case of peaceful persuasion. Then the hon. Member talked of other incidents, and continued his story in this way:
However, going back to my story, I said to this old man, 'You have given your pledge, and you can keep it, if you feel you can pass your fellows and know that you may be betraying some man's home.' I went out, and there was a number of men waiting to see this man, and I said
to them, 'He is a good fellow. Do not let him believe there is the slightest desire to obstruct him. There are only a dozen of you. Form two lines, if you like, but stand clear, and give him an open space, and let one of you who work with him step out and say to him: 'Harry, are you going to take my job when my wife and kids are in the balance?' If he passes you, I shall be deceived, but let him go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1927; cols. 1706–7, Vol. 205.]
That is the story told by a trade union leader without the slightest idea that there is any case that anyone can object to there with regard to intimidation. You get this highly-respected engineman who had given his word to his employer that he would do a certain thing. Apparently there was thought to be nothing wrong, in the first instance, in persuading the man to break his word. I should have thought it more honourable to let him drive that train and seek to persuade him afterwards. He was a highly-respected man, and it will he noticed from the story that he was an old man. Only a dozen of his fellow workers out-side his house! Apparently it takes a dozen peacefully to persuade an old man not to drive an engine.

Mr. BATEY: It would take a hundred to persuade you.

Mr. PETO: I hope it would. Is it necessary to have a trade union leader there to ask a dozen men to stand aside from a man's doorstep to allow a free British citizen to step out of his door and walk away from his house?

Miss WILKINSON: And betray all he has ever stood for in his trade union. You do not understand what you are talking about.

Mr. PETO: That is not freedom to my mind. I hope that this Bill will restore freedom to individual trade unionists to work or not to work as they think right and as they consider it their duty to do. They are to stand clear. Now the man may leave his own house. When he walks down the street the men are not to shout at him at one moment, but one of them is to say: "Are you going to take my job when my wife and kids are in the balance?" That is an argument that is often used, but why should not a man have wife and kids of his own, and why should he not be entitled to think of them as well as of other people's wives and kids? It seems to me that it is distorting
the question always to ask an individual man to think of other people's families when his first thought ought to be to look after his own family. That story as told in this House shows that even the leaders themselves do not realise what fair-play is in picketing. That being so, and as an hon. Member in the position of the hon. Member for Barrow in-Furness can tell such a story without any idea that there is intimidation involved in it, we have proof how very necessary this Clause is. The Clause is declaratory, inasmuch as it explains the present law, and I hope that it also strengthens it.

Miss WILKINSON: It is extraordinary that an hon. Member should come here and talk about trade unionism, and especially about the trade unionists in his own constituency, as the last speaker has done. I was particularly interested in his speech because I happened to address a very large demonstration of trade unionist miners a few days after the conference to which the hon. Member has referred, a conference which was treated with considerable amusement by the very large number of miners who were present at the Labour demonstration. They knew how the conference was called, and they knew who were there. If the hon. Gentleman's speech is reported in his own constituency, as I hope it will be, I do not think it is wise for him to bring before the Somersetshire miners that comic opera conference of his and to talk about having received a mandate from it. We have had the hon. Gentleman again treating us to those extraordinary ideas of his as to what a strike is and as to what trade unionism is for. If he knew what a strike was he would realise what it is that men are up against When men leave their work they do not do it lightly. There seems to be an extraordinary impression upon the benches opposite that workmen like strikes and that they strike for the fun of the thing.
For 10 years before I was a Member of Parliament I was a trade union official and was largely employed on strike duty. I know the terrific searchings of heart that take place before men come out on strike, because they know that they are risking their jobs and risking their wives and families' future, and it is not an easy thing to make the decision. But
when that decision is made, do you think that men who are entering on a struggle like that are going very lightly to see other men—men who perhaps have taken part in all the union negotiations, who have taken part in the ballots and the votes and the meetings and very often have voted for the strike—crawling to their employers for the jobs that they have left? I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the Army or not, but if he was he will know that in the Army there was very short shrift for deserters who deserted in the line of battle. The extraordinary thing about the hon. Gentleman is that he cannot see that in an industrial struggle, to the men it is just as much a fight as is a fight on the battlefield. It is not a fight with the same weapons, but it is a fight with an even more ruthless enemy than that faced on the battlefield, an enemy that will not cease to be an enemy when the struggle is over, but will use every kind of vindictive retaliation after the dispute has been settled and an agreement has been signed. There is not one trade unionist on these benches who could not confirm that statement.
Talk about intimidation! Why, the trade unionists have not learned the first line of the creed; the employers could give them a start and leave them standing. We have not even begun to learn what intimidation is. The hon. Member talks of "twelve men outside your door." That is nothing to the knowledge that not only yourself but your wife and children and those related to you will not get a job in that area any more. That is the kind of struggle. The hon. Member talked about the freedom of the British citizen. He mentioned the conditions in his own Somersetshire constituency, and said that the conditions amongst the miners there were the result of the dispute of last year. Does he not know of the conditions that existed in those mines before the lock-out? I visited one village in his constituency two or three miles from Radstock, and I went along a whole row of miners' cottages. The miners showed me pay sheets for weeks and weeks previous to the stoppage. They were on short time and there was not one pay sheet that showed more than £1 a week for a man with wife and family.
If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, those pay sheets are still there, and we will go back to the same village and interview those people. [Laughter.] I do not regard this as a joke; I regard it as a very serious matter. If you have conditions like that and then you come along here to say that those conditions are due to the dispute, I reply that the conditions now are very little worse than they were before the dispute. The miners in that district put up a great fight in comradeship with their fellow workers. Members of the hon. Gentleman's class who are brought up with a regard for esprit de corps, whose schools and colleges teach them that they have to stand by their fellows, regard what is a point of honour for themselves as a crime when it is done by the working classes of England, and they produce Clauses like this in order to emphasise to the workers of this country that such fine sentiments are not for working people but are merely reserved for gentlemen.
Let me turn to the Attorney-General. This is quite an interesting Clause and one would like to ask the Attorney-General what are to be the qualifications of His Majesty's Judges when this Bill becomes law? It seems to me that under this Clause the Judges will have to decide what is going on in the minds of individuals in particular cases, and I suggest that, in addition to a legal training, a training in psycho-analysis should be one of the requisites of a Judge in future. The Judges will have to decide what it means to cause in the mind of a person "a reasonable apprehension of injury.'' Surely, a reasonable apprehension varies from man to man. A man who has been, let us say, a heavy-weight champion in the Navy, will have a very different view of what is a reasonable apprehension of injury from a man, for instance, who has a physique such as mine. But we are going even beyond that. The expression "injury" is to include "injury" other than physical or material injury." Presumably, that means spiritual injury and the judges will have an entertaining time deciding what is a reasonable apprehension of spiritual injury on the part of a man who is acting as a blackleg. One could ask how this gentleman is to be injured in his conscience? It is going to be extraordinarily hard lines on the strikers and it is going to be extraordinarily difficult for anybody even to wander
down the street of a mining village where a dispute is in progress. You have a blackleg leaving his home in the morning. He knows that he is playing a thoroughly dirty game and he can hardly look one of his fellows in the face. He will go down back streets wherever he can, to avoid meeting them. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General in this matter is showing once again his surpassing ignorance of what a mining village or any strike area is like during a dispute. I wonder if he has ever been anywhere near a strike, apart from driving through the district in his motor car and saying, "How dreadful these people are; they ought to be at work."
If he would come off the high pedestal which is erected for Attorneys-General in this country; if he would deign so far as to meet some working-class people on strike; if he would for once get out of that cloistered existence which the great dignitaries of the law so comfortably pursue and go into the rough and tumble of industrial life, then he would see the attitude of the blackleg to the striker. He would see that these men who slink down the main streets of towns and villages during a strike do so not, because they are afraid of stones being thrown at them, but because they are afraid of spiritual injury. That is to say, they cannot meet their fellows and look them in the face. They go round back streets in order to get to their work. But these are the people whose consciences must be protected. We are to protect the home of the blackleg. I have no objection to that because, Heaven knows, the wife of the blackleg has enough to put up with in being married to a blackleg, without having the fear of injury to her home. We are to protect him from personal injury and I have no objection to that either but, then, we are to go further and somehow or other we are to protect this man's conscience. It is proposed to wrap him round so that not even one frown or one look should ever suggest that there might be a dart within his conscience. We are to see to it that, when he is slinking round corners to get to his work, he is protected by armies of policemen. One look from a woman with a child in her arms as she realises that he is going to take her man's job may cause him spiritual injury; it may go into his conscience and make him realise that he is being a traitor to his class and if
one woman gives him such a look presumably she can be had up under this Clause. The whole thing is so ridiculous that it would go down in a howl of laughter if it had not its serious aspect—if it were not a proof that, as far as the Members on the benches opposite are concerned, there is nothing they will not do in order to break a strike and in order to back up the employers of this country.
There is nothing more comical in this Bill than the first part of Clause 3. This is an attempt to try to bring in intimidation by employers when no employer will come in under one line or phrase of Clause 1, and the Government know it. Bat when we come to the much more serious matter—the definition—when we come to Sub-sections (2) and (4) of this Clause, then we find the Government of this country saying that they are only interested in one section concerned in any industrial dispute. I do not want to do the Attorney-General an injustice but I take it that Clause 3 refers to all strikes and not only to illegal strikes and, therefore, we find the Government saying to anybody who engages in any industrial dispute, no matter how justified, "We are going to protect in every possible way not only the home and property and person or the blackleg but we are even going to try as a Government to bolster up his self-respect. If you dare to do anything which injures him, not only personally, but which injures his self-respect; if, in fact, you cause him injury other than physical or material injury; if you injure him, for example, in his hope of Ħeaven in another world, then you are liable to be brought in under this Clause." I cannot conceive anything that this smiling Attorney-General has done to the workers of the country worse than that vile Clause and I use the word "vile" advisedly. The Home Secretary knows, and the Attorney-General himself knows, that the law of the land as it stands is perfectly adequate to deal with any kind of trouble that may arise in any possible strike such as has ever happened in this country.
The Home Secretary said again and again in the Debates on the Emergency Powers Act that the powers in his hand under that and other Acts gave him ample opportunity for dealing with any situation that might arise, and I think he claimed credit for himself for dealing
with the conditions which arose at that time. Here we get the position that those powers are not enough; that all our laws are not sufficient. Why not? Because the Attorney-General is not merely concerned with making criminals of these men. He is concerned with causing apprehension in the mind of any man who dares to vote for a strike; and so we have all these vague phrases and all these uncertainties and all this lack of knowledge as to what is going to happen. I can conceive of nothing cleverer than this attempt to get into the minds of the working people the understanding fiat they had better put up with any conditions, however unjust, because they do not know what is waiting for them if they object. We congratulate the Attorney-General because Nature gave him the face of one of the Cheeryble Brothers, but I say this quite firmly, that behind the face of Mr. Pickwick or the Cheeryble cherub who comes here and smiles upon us, he has the mind and heart of a Mephistopheles.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I apologise to the House for rising before having quite digested the compliment which the hon. Lady has paid to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. But does not the speech of the hon. Lady bring home to the House the kind of thing with which the non-striker has to put up? Fancy the hon. Lady being let loose in a mining area during a strike and firing off a speech of that kind in regard to the unfortunate men whom she terms, with all the withering irony of which she is capable, "blacklegs." She tells this House, and I suppose she tells these men and their wives too, that she has riot much pity for any woman who is the wife of a blackleg because such a woman has brought on herself the worst fate that could possibly apply to a decent woman.

Miss WILKINSON: Hear, Hear!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If that be the view which the hon. Lady takes, then I suppose she would tell them also—I am sure she is as courageous outside the House as in it—that these men, who are only carrying out the elementary rights of Englishmen to work or not as they like, are "playing a thoroughly dirty
game." If that be really the view of the working class about this Bill, we shall not be here after the next election.

Mr. OLIVER: You will not.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite satisfied to take the risk and the party as a whole is quite satisfied to take the risk on this Clause. I say quite frankly that we have now come to the most popular Clause in the Bill. The hon. Lady has been attending meetings—carefully packed meetings of strikers—and they have cheered her to the echo. Of course they did, if she made a speech of the kind to which we have just listened, against men who will not strike and who prefer to work. I was at a meeting the other day of 5,000 people.

Mr. PALIN: Admission by ticket.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: But they are all Englishmen. They are all voters and they have just as much right to their opinion as anybody else.

Mr. BROAD: Carefully packed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The real difficulty with hon. Members opposite is that they think they and their party are the whole of this country. They are not by a long way.

Mr. BROAD: The right hon. Gentleman referred to our meetings as being carefully packed with strikers. They are public meetings open to everybody and we have the right to retort.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not mind whether my meeting is said to be packed or not. It was attended by 5,000 voters who will vote with me and not with hon. Members opposite. The real difficulty in getting any kind of argument in this House is that hon. Members opposite will not realise that they are not a majority of the country. The majority of the country is in favour of this Bill.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. OLIVER: What about the by-elections?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no question about it. Hon. Members opposite have been doing all they possibly can to work up steam against this Bill and the attempt has failed and they
know it has failed Look at the Liberal benches here to-day.

Mr. PALIN: What about your own?

5.0 p.m.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Our sup, porters are good enough to have confidence in their leaders, but look at the Liberal benches. Where is the furious support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he is not quite certain, but nearly certain, that he is against any of the Clauses of this Bill? It is not much good trying to pretend to this House that all the speeches to which we have listened represent the considered views of the working men of this country. They represent, I agree, the views of the leaders, who think they have a right to dictate the policy of the whole of the trade unions. Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do, and that is why they are attacking it, that this Bill will he passed in its present form, and that it will curtail, very largely, the powers of the trade union leaders and will give freedom to men who, up to the present, have been the dupes of the trade union leaders. It is all nonsense to tell me that on the 1st May last year, when the general strike began, all the men came nut because they wanted to do so. The hon. Lady opposite will not think me uncomplimentary when I say that when I listen to her, I sometimes am reminded of Madame Defarge, and the tumbrils on their way to the guillotine. I think the hon. Lady would go on with her knitting if the Home Secretary rode in one of the tumbrils. I do not in the least dispute the power and authority of the hon. Lady, but it is quite clear that her mind is warped. Her mind is the mind of the trade union leaders, and they will not see any right or fairness in the minds of the men who do not go on strike, and who are called by them the opprobrious epithet of "blackleg." The blackleg the man who desires to continue his work for the sake of his wife and family. The man who is given an opprobrious epithet of that kind has a right to be protected against that sort of intimidation, and he has as much right to work as hon. Members opposite have, and as much right live as they have.

Mr. OLIVER: We do not stop him from working. The present law can protect him quite adequately.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has listened to the speech of the hon. Lady who has just sat down. It is quite clear that when she was a trade union official—I do not know if she was a trade union leader—she was employed on strike duty. What is strike duty except trying to stop men from working when the rest of the men who are usually at work are out on strike? She told us, quite frankly, of the horror which the trade union leader and the striker had for the men who would not, as she termed it, play the game with their colleagues, and would not be bound by a, pledge of honour to allow their wives and children to starve merely because someone else told them to strike.
The real opposition to the Clause, and the reason for the speeches that have been made this afternoon, is that hon. Members opposite cannot attack the Clause because it is so good that it cannot be successfully attacked, either here or in the country. We had a debate on the Clause a few weeks ago on the Committee stage. It was stated then, and I repeat it now, that the first part of the Clause merely lays down the law as it is at the present time. Complaints nave been made by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) who moved the omission of the Clause, about the words "reasonable apprehension" in the minds of the men who complain. That is the law to-day. That is the thing on which a magistrate can find to-day. If a man goes to the Court, and complains that he is in fear of personal violence—[Interruplion]. What I am going on to try to prove to hon. Members opposite is that the judge to-day has to get into the mind of the complainant. That seems to me to be in the minds of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston and the hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) a new thing. But that is done every day. When a man is not on strike at all he may go to the Courts and ask for a summons against so-and-so because he is in fear of personal violence. That means that there is a reasonable apprehension in his mind of personal violence, and the Judge or the magistrate has to be convinced of the reasonable apprehension to-day in the case of violence. This Clause, I admit, goes a step farther, and says that if there is reasonable apprehension
either of violence or of some injury other than personal violence, that is intimidation. It is just as easy for a magistrate to decide whether a man is in reasonable apprehension of personal violence as of any ether sort of intimidation. It is quite as easy. Take the case mentioned here the other day, and the cases of intimidation that have been mentioned this afternoon. I quite frankly say that we do mean to go further than the law does to-day in regard to personal violence. We mean to stop if we can what I conceive to be a far more subtle, a far more injurious, and a far more diabolical form of intimidation than personal violence; violence other than personal of which we have heard this afternoon. There is the case of attempting to drive either a son or daughter of a man ought of work because that man has not gone on strike.

Mr. TINKER: Surely the Home Secretary will give us a ease in point?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly, I will. I will give the hon. Member a case in point. Supposing the son or daughter of a man who has gone on strike is employed at the local co-operative stores, and the local co-operative stores is in the hands of trade union leaders. That is a perfectly clear case and a perfectly fair case. All I want to know is, are hon. Members opposite going to defend that or not? The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney)—he is not in his place this afternoon—quite frankly defended, in the last Debate, that as a legal form of intimidation. Are hon. Members opposite going to defend it? I do not care if only one case occurs. Are they going to defend it or not?

Mr. BATEY: Yes.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There; we have got it. There is a trade union official, a miners' leader, who quite frankly says to the House that he would defend it. Surely, after that one admission by the hon. Member, the House will vote for this Clause?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman defend a case where the father has been dismissed by an employer and the whole of the sons have been turned out of work, because that father has dismissed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, I would not defend it. The hon. Member's colleague, however, has quite frankly shown where the trade union mind is going. The trade union mind is exemplified by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who would not allow the slightest rope to the man whom he terms a blackleg. I am here to protect that man, and to assure him of the ordinary rights of the civilised British subject. I will not have that man intimidated in that way. Another hon. Member cited a case in which trade unionists said to the man who would not come out on strike, "If you do not come out on strike, when the thing is over we will not work by your side; we will not have anything to do with you. You are never going back into the pit with us."

Miss WILKINSON: Why not? It seems to me the most obvious thing in the world.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Thank you. Now we are getting at the truth. First we have it from the hon. Member for Spennymoor and then from the hon. Lady.

Mr. CONNOLLY: What about the right hon. Member's own trade union—the lawyers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They might do the same thing, but they do not. They do not go out on strike.

Miss WILKINSON: Why not?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Trade is too good. What need is there for me to speak further on this Clause? We have had now, quite frankly, the statement from two hon. Members that they are prepared quite definitely to say that they can see nothing wrong in that form of intimidation, which is far worse than the old-fashioned form of threatening to knock a man down. It is a subtle form of mental intimidation, and it is far more cruel and Far more diabolical than knocking a man down.

Mr. OLIVER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us out of the seven months' stoppage last year, any evidence of that, even with promptings from the Attorney-General?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a remarkable thing that that never happens,
when the hon. Lady who sits next to the hon. Gentleman says that that is the obvious thing to do. There is something wrong in trade union philosophy somewhere. I am not sure where, but there is something wrong. May I suggest that the party opposite should have a party meeting on this question, and settle, before they come to debate the matter, what really is the trade union policy on this matter?

Mr. OLIVER: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a question, but he has not yet given me an answer. Can he, from the seven months' experience last year, quote one single instance?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I quoted one in a Debate a month ago. I gave the case of the Wigan Irish Labour Club, and the Bolton Irish Labour Club. They issued a circular which said:
If it so happens that you have been misled, make good. Come out now! This is our first and last appeal. A list of those who ignore this appeal will be sent to the Irish Transport Workers' Union at Dublin and published in the Irish maid American Press. Records will also be kept in the Irish organisation and Labour clubs in Great Britain and Ireland for further reference.
What does that mean?

Mr. OLIVER: It has nothing to do with what you have just said on this matter.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it is perfectly clear that there are dozens of cases in the Courts, of men who have been threatened in that way.

Mr. OLIVER: That was not my point.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was dealing with a suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Fast Middlesbrough that the most obvious thing was that they were not to get work again.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of explanation, may I say that what the right hon. Gentleman was doing was to say that it was a form of intimidation to say that a person should be dismissed from a union and that the members of the union should have nothing farther to do with him, and they would not allow him to work with him again. I said that it was a most obvious thing to do, but that was rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is a fact
that very large numbers of trade unionists, as a matter of fact do not do that. There is no real intimidation. My point is that, in a dispute when every thing is at stake, I cannot see what the right hon. Gentleman has to complain of.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very much obliged to the hon. Lady. She and the hon. Member for Ilkeston may make it up outside. It is enough for me that she said that that was the most obvious thing to do. I am here on behalf of the Government to say that we will, to the utmost of our power, protect the man who wants to work from intimidation of that kind. That is the view of the Government in regard to this particular Clause, and it is because of that view, because we believe that view to be held by the vast majority of the people of this country, because we believe that if hon. Members go down to the country and try to put any other view before the country they will receive a very rude awakening at the hands of the working men and at the hands of the trade unionists as well that we ask the House to pass this Clause. It is for those reasons that we believe that this Clause is a good Clause a sound Clause, and a useful Clause. I ask the House to pass it.

Mr. BATEY: I wish to protest against the manner in which the Home Secretary has treated this Clause. This Clause is a serious Clause, and neither the Home Secretary nor anyone else should treat it as a joke. This Clause means driving the working classes back and grinding them down, and we make our protest against the Home Secretary treating this Clause as a joke. When he speaks as he does he shows the vicious, bitter, mind of the Tory, so far as the working classes of this country are concerned. He says that because trade unionists are in the minority they should not attempt to rule the country. Trade unionists are in the minority, but although they are in the minority they have the right to live. It is because we believe that, that we claim that we are entitled to say to all cur members, wherever they may be employed, that they ought not to be prepared to accept either wages or conditions that will lower their standard of living or that will destroy the conditions that the trade unions have established.
We believe that the Tories in this House and in the country have the impression that they are the only people who have a right to live in this country. They believe that the working classes should do what they say they ought to do, and they think that the working classes have no right to live except upon their conditions. The Home Secretary says that there has been nothing said against this Clause in the Debate to-day, but I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman that we believe this Clause to be a vicious Clause and a Clause that we, as trade unionists, cannot too strongly condemn. The Home Secretary can talk about his meetings consisting of 5,000 and of other meetings in which trade unionists have given them a mandate for this Clause, but we believe that, when the time comes for the country to give its verdict on this Clause and on this Bill, that verdict will be in keeping with the verdicts given at the various by-elections, which have shown this Government to be in a hopeless minority, receiving very few votes to justify them in going forward with this Bill.
This is such a vicious Clause that it is driving the trade unionists back right to the beginning of 1800. The statesmen in 1799 were much more straight and much more honest than are the members of the present Government, because they passed Acts of Parliament to prevent combination among the workmen. They said, "We will not allow the working classes to combine," but the members of this present Government say, "Oh, yes, we will give you the right to combine and to have your trade unions, but, when you have got your trade unions and the right to combine, we will do all that we can to cripple those unions and to make it impossible for them to function." The members of the Government to-day are not as advanced as were the statesmen of 1859, because the statesmen of that day did allow peaceful picketing in an Act which they passed in that year, but the statesmen of to-day are so much more reactionary than were those of 1859 that to-day they say, "We will not allow you to engage in peaceful picketing, and we will make it as impossible as we can for your trade unions to function."
I think it might have been wise on the part of both the Home Secretary
and the Attorney-General if, before they had brought in this Bill, they had read trade union history. If they had done so, they would have learned this lesson from it, that while the Government in 1871 repealed not only the 1825 Act, but also the 1859 Act, and while they passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act, they suffered for it. They passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act, repealing the right of peaceful picketing granted in 1859, but when that Government went to the country in 1874, the country expressed its decision upon the action of the Government and swept that Government out of office. When Disraeli came into power in 1874, he acted very differently from the way in which the present Government have acted, for in 1875 he passed an Act that gave to the trade unions the right to picket and to combine, and peace followed for at least 25 years.
The present Home Secretary, if he had read trade union history, would have learned from it that the Home Secretary in Disraeli's Government, in 1875, in assisting to pass that Act, acted so differently from the way in which he himself has acted that he is the only Home Secretary who has ever had a vote of thanks passed to him by the Trade Union Congress. The present Trade Union Congress will not attempt to pass a vote of thanks to the present Home Secretary.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They would not be likely to do so.

Mr. BATEY: No, because his actions are such that they would not be warranted in doing it. The present Home Secretary, I say, might have been wise in reading trade union history and in following the example of Mr. Cross, the Home Secretary of that day. The Attorney-General has argued all along that Clause 1 would not affect in the least the primary strike, but while he makes that claim, this Clause 3 destroys the benefits of the primary strike, because where a trade union decides to have a strike, which may be a perfectly legal strike, this Clause makes it impossible for the trade union to carry on peaceful picketing and for anyone to attend near either the house or any place wherever a blackleg may be, and, therefore, this Clause is one of the Clauses
that destroys the usefulness of the primary strike.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and other members of the party opposite complain that trade unions intimidate blacklegs. I have no hesitation in saying that I would not grant any right to any man to blackleg his fellows where a trade union is fighting either for wages or to maintain conditions, and where they may have spent a lot of money in order to obtain a decent standard of wages and fair conditions. In those circumstances, I would not give the right to any man to come in to pull down those wages or destroy those conditions, and what I would not do as a member of a trade union, neither the Home Secretary nor the Attorney-General would do as members of their own unions. If anyone in their profession attempted to do anything that would injure their union, they would say to those men, "You have no right to do it, and as far as we can we are going to prevent you from doing it." In this Bill the Government aim only at the trade unions engaged in industry, and they keep clear of dealing with the trade unions among the professions. As a matter of fact, they dare not attempt to interfere with those unions, but they think they can use their power to suppress or cripple the trade unions in which the industrial classes are organised.
While the Government complain that trade unionists abuse their powers for the purpose of intimidating blacklegs, they should remember that there is other intimidation than that practised by trade unionists. Since the end of the coal dispute we have seen intimidation used ruthlessly by the employers of this country. The Home Secretary was rather keen to give a case where trade unionists had used intimidation, and I want to give him a case and to ask him whether it would not have warranted the Government in trying to prevent intimidation by employers of labour. I have in my Division a miners' secretary, who, simply because he was the local secretary of the miners' lodge, went out during the dispute last year and on a certain occasion was out with the rest of the members of that union having a march. It so happened that they were having it at the time that some blacklegs were coming from the pit. I submit
that they were entitled to have their march and to time it just when it pleased them. They had their march just at the time when the blacklegs were coming from the pit, and all that happened was this, that some of the women in the march booed at the blacklegs.
That is a very serious offence. Because those women booed at the blacklegs, the local miners' secretary was taken to Court, together with the local president and some other members belonging to the committee. The local miners' secretary was sent to prison or two months, but he ought never to have been imprisoned, and, if he had had a fair trial, he would not have been imprisoned. If there had not been a coal-owner sitting on the bench he would not, but a coalowner was sitting in the chair, with some colliery managers on the bench, and they sent him to prison for two months. He served his two 'months, and, because he went to prison, that man, who was a good workman, a steady workman, has never been allowed a day's work at that colliery since. He cannot get re-started, and he was punished also in this way, that he was a member of the local board of guardians, but because he had been sent to prison, he had to retire from that board. That was not all. For 20 Years he had been a Wesleyan local preacher, but, because he had been sent to prison, they put him off the "plan," and would not let him preach any longer. I submit that there is a case of intimidation where a trade union official has really suffered, yet there is no sign of the Government in this Bill taking any steps to protect trade unionists who have suffered merely because they have stood by their fellows. I ask the Home Secretary, Why this Clause? Last year's events did not justify this Clause. On Second Reading, I think, the Attorney-General said there were some 7,000 or 8,000 prosecutions during the trouble last year. Some people were glad to get prosecutions last year; they were started on very slight pretence; but while there may have been 7,000 or 8,000 prosecutions, the Home Secretary has admitted, in answer to a question by myself, that there were only 653 convictions.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I ever said any such thing. The hon. Member may be referring to the
number sent to prison. I cannot carry all the figures in my head, but of the 7,000 cases mentioned by the Attorney-General nearly all were convictions.

Mr. BATEY: There is a serious difference there between the Home Secretary and myself. I will look the point up and will send the Home Secretary a copy both of my question and of his answer. I am almost certain that the word was "convictions." I know 653 was the number. If there was only that small number, there is no need for this Clause. The Home Secretary himself has said that the conduct of the working class during the dispute could not be complained of, and that the peaceable behaviour of the people showed that things were getting much better than they used to be in the past. The miners never behaved better than they did during the dispute lest year. In one of the Debates on this Measure someone said this Clause had been asked for by people who had suffered at the hands of the trade unions. I do not believe the people who suffered are really the people who asked for this Clause or who are responsible for it. This Clause is introduced by members of the Government, who want to cripple the trade unions and to make it easy for employers reduce wages and alter conditions for the worse. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 we had a boom for two or three ears. When in 1874 trade began to go down employers wanted reductions of wages and did everything they could in order to bring them about. The trade unions were not so strong then as they are to-day, and between 1874 and 1880 the employers succeeded in enforcing their wills upon the unions and reduced wages. Now, after the short boom which followed the Great War, employers want to reduce wages again, and the Prime Minister has come to the help of the employers. When the dispute first started last year he said that wages must come down, not only the wages of the miners, but the wages of everybody else.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member knows that that statement was repeatedly denied both in this House and outside.

Mr. KELLY: Other employers said it.

Mr. HANNON: Is it in order for an hon. Member to repeat in this House a statement which a Minister has positively denied that he ever made?

Mr. BATEY: I was in the House and heard the Prime Minister deny that statement, but since then I have heard men who were present at that interview with the Prime Minister repeat the statement and say it was true.

Mr. HANNON: That only makes the offence of the hon. Member worse.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): It is not usual to repeat statements which have been denied.

Mr. BATEY: I was in the House and heard the Prime Minister deny the statement, but f have beard men who were present at the interview say since then that it was perfectly true.

Mr. KIDD: Do you prefer their word to the Prime Minister's?

Mr. BATEY: Make no mistake about it, if I have to accept the word of a trade unionist or the word of a Tory, prefer the word of a trade unionist.

Sir W. J OYNSON-HICKS: Cook versus the Prime Minister.

Mr. BATEY: If I have to accept the word of Cook or the Prime Minister, I accept the word of Cook. I believe that Cook is actuated by a desire to try to better the conditions of the working class, and that cannot be said of the Prime Minister, nor can it be said of the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary. I believe the Home Secretary is not trying to better, and is not desirous of bettering, the conditions of the working class. I believe that both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister want to pull down the conditions of the working class, want to push them right down into the grip of poverty. In order to do that the Government are introducing this Bill. They will succeed in passing it through this House, but when the country has to give a verdict upon the Bill there mill be no question of what the verdict will be.

Sir W.JOYNSON-HICKS: Hear, hear!

Mr. RILEY: There are certain potentialities under this Clause which have not so far been referred to. It has been said that whilst it imposes certain restrictions upon members of trade unions during an industrial dispute it also imposes the same restrictions upon employers. I suggest that is a mere pretext,
and that in reality trade unionists only are subjected to restraint. Suppose a trade dispute breaks out and a workman visits the house of a fellow workman who is working and is opposed to the policy of the union, in order to engage in ordinary peaceful persuasion, using no threat of violence to compel the man to cease work but simply using the ordinary means of peaceful persuasion by conveying information to him or seeking information from him as to what is his view on the matter. If the man so visited has reasonable ground to apprehend that as a result of that conversation he may in the future suffer some kind of injury, not a material injury or a pecuniary injury, but something other than a visible injury—if he has some idea that there may be a social boycott against him—he will be entitled to commence proceedings against the man who visited him. Indeed, the man visited may not have to risk the expense of taking action himself. He can report to his employer what has taken place, and his employer may say, "Very well, I will attend to that and I will see that all the money is found." I understand there is nothing to prevent that being done. That is the position in which the trade unionist is placed. It is suggested that an employer is placed in the same position. There is a claim that this is even-handed justice and that what applies to the workman is going to apply to the employer. Nothing of the kind. What the Clause says is that if one or more persons attend
at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or happens to he, for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information or of persuading or inducing any person to work or to abstain from working, if they so attend in such numbers or otherwise in such manner as to be calculated to intimidate any person in that house or place, or to obstruct the approach thereto or egress therefrom, or to lead to a breach of the peace.
they will be subject to penalties.
Take the case of an employer where there is a lock-out, Suppose certain employers who are not in favour of that policy keep their factories open. There is no need for the employers who are taking part in the lock-out to approach them in their houses, to beset them in the street or to visit their works. They can get into touch with the recalcitrant employers on the telephone without subjecting themselves to the penalties of
this Clause at all. On the telephone they can say to an employer who keeps his works open, "It is going to be detrimental to you, and if you continue to keep your place working you will suffer in consequence." They could do that without bringing themselves within this Clause at all. There is no besetting, there is no visiting, there is simply a telephone conversation. In the textile industry in the West Riding of Yorkshire employers in the same industry get work done by one another. Certain factories engage only in the weaving of cloth and others do the spinning, and certain employers put out work to other factories. If there is a lock-out and certain spinners are not joining in, what is there to prevent the threat being made over the telephone to those who go on working that in future no orders will come to them? What applies to the workmen will not apply to the employers at all. The Bill is weighted against the workmen and it is inviting workmen who have been concerned in building up unions and who have been prominent in trade union organisation to be dishonourable under a majority rule, and to violate all the pledges they have given. On these grounds I strongly oppose the Clause.

Mr. TOWNEND: I would like to ask the Attorney-General before the Division is taken to endeavour to give us a definition of the phrase in
Sub-section (2) of this Clause which reads:
and the expression injury includes injury other than physical or material injury.
We ought to have a clear definition as to what kind of injury other than violence is included in those words. It will be remembered that the original Bill referred to injury that mighty be caused by apprehension, ridicule, or contempt. There have been various criticisms as to what is meant by ridicule or contempt and in consequence of those criticisms we find that the Attorney-General has thought better, and has submitted what he really meant in the phrase I have just quoted. I would like to know from the Attorney-General what the limitation of this term really is, and exactly under what category or categories it is possible to apprehend a member of a trade union who has been, in the opinion of a policeman or someone representing the
authority,
guilty of intimidation under Clause 3. I ask this because of what was said by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who reminded us of the case of the secretary of one of his lodges who was haled before a bench of magistrates on which sat a colliery owner, and he had to submit to a term of imprisonment which not only acted on his economic life but also extended to his spiritual life. He was cut off from his circuit, being a lay preacher, and he was dropped down from that high position and placed on the same level as a criminal who had been compelled to submit to the unfortunate experience which he had to undergo.
We are entitled from the Attorney-General to a clearer definition on this point than has yet been given to us. I want further to emphasise this point, because of the experience of my own union. It has been pointed out that we object to Clause 3 for another reason, namely, that through prosecutions wrongly instituted the funds of the trade unions will be seriously depleted, and, if we are going to do justice to our members who might under this Clause he haled before the bench, we shall have to take the same kind of action that my own union had to take following the events of 12 months ago. We know that the seats on the local magisterial benches are occupied by local people whose personal equation does not fall our way. The prejudice in their minds had to be met in a particular way which cost us very heavily. We have to submit the case or. behalf of our members to a solicitor, because we knew the terrible price that would have to be paid if in such cases the men lose their jobs after being convicted. Therefore, we have to protect them not only against the possible sentence of two months or a lighter sentence as the case may be, but also against losing their jobs.
We have to impress en the local bench in the event of the magistrates allowing their personal prejudice to weigh against the men in the way indicated by the hon. Member for Spennymoor, that we are prepared to take such cases to the highest Court in the land where we can rely upon our case being considered without bias being manifested to the detriment of cur members. Inasmuch as this Clause leaves the position of those men to whom I have referred subject to the prejudice of local magistrates, and in the
light of the experience which we have had to undergo in the past, I think we are entitled to a clearer definition of the term,
other than physical or material injury.
We know the experience we had some 12 months ago, and, because of our desire to save the funds of our unions, I think

before a decision is taken on this Clause the Attorney-General should give us the definition for which I have asked.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and' in page. 4, line 3, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 114.

Division No. 195.]
AYES.
[5. 54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Albery, Irving James
Fermoy, Lord
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fielden, E. B.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Apsley, Lord
Finburgh, S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. w.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Malone, Major P. B.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Atkinson, C.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, Captain D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Balniel, Lord
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Berry, Sir George
Goff. Sir Park
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Bethel, A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Blundell, F. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w,E)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pennefather, Sir John


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Perring, Sir William George


Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hacking. Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hanbury, C
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Buchan, John
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Burman, J. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raine, Sir Walter


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, E.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hawke, John Anthony
Remnant, Sir James


Campbell, E. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rentoul, G S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Sandon, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hume, Sir G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Skelton, A. N.


Couper, J. B.
Jacob, A. E.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Jephcott, A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Long, Major Eric
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lougher, Lewis
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Duckworth, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ellis, R. G.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Elveden, Viscount
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean. Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Watson, Rt. Hon W. (Carlisle)
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Watts, Dr. T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Wells, S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wragg Herbert


White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Wise. Sir Fredric



Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Withers, John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Womersley, W. J.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Mr. Penny.


Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, central)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayes, John. Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. S. Lees (Keighley)


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Baker, Walter
Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford. T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Kirkwood, D
Sutton, J. E.


Bromley, J.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lee, F.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro.W.)


Buchanan, G.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton E.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clowes, S.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Maxton, James
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Mosley, Oswald
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Murnin, H.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Palin, John Henry
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Fenby, T. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Potts, John S.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Purcell, A. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Riley, Ben
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ritson, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Greenall, T.
Roberts, Rt-Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Westwood. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Rose, Frank H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shepherd. Arthur Lewis
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)



Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Smillie, Robert
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.




Henderson.

Captain O'CONNOR: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out from the word "peace" to the end of Sob-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the words:
and any person acting in contravention of the foregoing provisions shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months with or without hard labour.
This Amendment does not raise any question of principle; it is merely an endeavour to introduce into the Clause what the existing words of the Clause mean. The last part of the Clause says that
attending at or near any house or place in such numbers or in such manner as is by this Sub-section declared to be unlawful shall be deemed to be a watching or besetting of that house or place within the meaning of Section seven of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.
What we have attempted to do, in the words which we are proposing, is merely to take from the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act the penalties that attach to watching and besetting, the only object of the Amendment being that any person who offends against this Clause shall know, by looking at the Clause, what is the exact penalty to which he is rendering himself liable. To say that anyone, if he commits an offence under this Clause, commits an offence against the Act of 1875, and is liable to the penalties provided by that Act, is to put an obligation on the unfortunate picket to go back to 1875 in order to find what his offence and its penalty may be. The Amendment, as I have said, raises no question of principle, but, nevertheless, raises a matter which is not entirely without importance. In a previous speech—I do not want to repeat myself—I told the House that Lord Halsbury,
when prosecuting people for offences of intimidation in South Wales, had stated that in numerous cases the men were well acquainted with the Act of 1906, but knew nothing whatsoever about the Act of 1875. It seemed to us that they did take some pains to find out what the law was, and that it was unfair to drive them back to 1875 to discover what their punishment was to be. I move this Amendment merely for the sake of clarity.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think my hon. Friend is not quite right in regard to this Amendment. The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, provides that a person who is guilty of the offences set out in that Act shall be liable to a fine of £20 or to three months' imprisonment. Although there may be some reason for putting the penalty into this Clause, 1 do not think that the way of doing it which my hon. Friend suggests is a satisfactory one. If my hon. Friend will look at Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Law of Property Act, 1875, he will see that an offence under that Act is only committed if the action in question is taken:
with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which suck other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority.
I am advised that, if this Amendment were accented, attending at or near a house in such numbers or in such manner as to be calculated to intimidate would be made an offence, even though it was not done wrongfully or without legal authority, as under the Act of 1875. It is because I want to include the words "wrongfully or without legal authority" that I refer to the Act of 1875, and I think that, if my hon. Friend will further consider the matter, he will find that so far from improving the Clause from the point of view of the picket, he will go a step further and create a further offence on the part of pickets which the Government, at all events, did not intend to create. I am informed that, under my hon. Friend's Amendment, anyone attending, not wrongfully, at a place, would be guilty of an offence. Take, for instance, the case which occurred not long ago, where a large number of police attended outside the premises of Arcos,
Ltd. They certainly attended for the purpose of obtaining information, and, undoubtedly, they attended in such numbers as would be calculated to intimidate people in the building; but they were there legally and rightfully, and the essence of the offence is that they should attend in such manner as to intimidate wrongfully and illegally. It is those words in the Act of 1875 that we desire to preserve. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, because it is one that the Government could not possibly accept, since they are strongly advised that it would he detrimental to the pickets rather than improving their position.

Sir JOHN SIMON: It seems most unfortunate that a suggestion made by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, simply for the purpose of getting on the face of the Statute what is the scale of punishment that might be inflicted, should have to be dropped because it may be, as the Home Secretary has explained that he has been advised, not in the right form. I venture to think that in this matter we must clearly distinguish between the substantial object which we should all like to see secured, and the precise change in the language of the Clause by which the object is to be effected. The object is this—and it is a thing which all of us in our different occupations have constantly had occasion to observe. It is a misfortune, when Parliament enacts a Clause declaring that something is unlawful and is punishable, that, if you were to buy the Act of Parliament when it had been passed, thinking that you would learn what the punishment was, you should only find the Act of Parliament saying: "Go and look up another Statute, and there you will see what the punishment is." Legislation by reference may sometimes, of course, be inevitable, but it is certainly unfortunate when you want, as far as possible, to deal with people plainly on the face of your Bill. It is claimed that this Bill is to be a declaratory Bill, and it is, naturally, at present attracting a good deal of attention, not only inside the House of Commons but throughout the country. If I understand the suggestion of the hon. Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor), it practically amounts to nothing more than this, that, when the Bill is finally passed and printed, and can be bought for a penny or twopence, anyone who buys
it believing that he will be able to learn from it what Parliament has said, shall not find that he cannot ascertain from its pages what, in fact, is the punishment for an offence under this Clause. That is an object which no one can possibly resist, and, therefore, I was not surprised when the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) seconded the Amendment as he did.
What does the Home Secretary say in answer to that? He speaks, as we know, with every desire to serve the House by putting before it the advice which is given by those who have to assist him professionally in the matter—advice which, of course, is bound to be very well founded: but it is not a good answer. The proper answer to such a proposal is that the Home Secretary or those responsible for the Bill should show how the punishment could be put on the face of the Bill, without, of course, doing what no one intends to do, namely, increasing the area of the offence. If I understand the Home Secretary rightly, his point does not, if he will excuse me for saying so, deal so much with the substance as with the form. He says that, if he were simply to say that in page 4, line 3, of this Bill, he would strike out the reference to the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and put in instead something about a fine or imprisonment, that really would not do what the Mover of the Amendment wants to do, but it would do something which he does not want to do, and which no one wants to do—that it would, absurdly enough, create offences which no one imagines to be offences at all that, for example, it would make it an offence for the police to go to an address where it was their duty to watch or get information.
The answer, surely, is very simple, and I hope the Home Secretary will consult his advisers to see whether it cannot be carried out. It is to make the Clause run in this sort of way, that this shall be deemed to be watching and besetting within the meaning of Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and then to add:
and accordingly, if done wrongfully and without legal authority, shall be punished in such-and-such a way.
It does not pass the wit of man to state that. I see that the Attorney-General is
now present. I do not think he was here at the moment when the difficulty was raised, and, perhaps, I may be allowed to repeat very briefly what I have just said. I understand that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Luton, to get upon the face of this Bill what is the maximum punishment for breaches of Clause 3, cannot be accepted, because, as the Home Secretary says, he is advised that, if the punishment were substituted for the reference to the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act., 1875, the result would be to make it a criminal offence, for example, for a let of policemen to go and watch at a house where some suspected person is believed to be. The Home Secretary has explained very clearly to the House that the difficulty is that the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, only makes that an offence if it be done wrongfully and without legal authority. I am suggesting most respectfully to the Attorney-General that that might be got over by slightly varying the Amendment, striking out the reference to the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, letting the whole thing rim as it does now to the end of the first Sub-section, and adding:
and accordingly if done wrongfully and without legal authority is punishable.
The Bill contains points of some difficulty and what many people regard as points of obscurity, but do not let us have unnecessary obscurity. As far as possible, write the thing clown in plain English on the face of the statute. I hope the Attorney-General will see whether something of that sort cannot be done.

Mr. CLYNES: I can speak only as a layman on this question, but I have listened to the speeches of three lawyers. Accepting as accurate everything that the Home Secretary has said, and having to come down on the side of one of the three utterances, I think this is one of the very rare occasions when we find ourselves more in agreement with the Government than with the other two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. I have followed as well as I could what has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), but I see in the 'terms of the Clause something more than a mere presentation of words, giving information. I see in these words a wider area of punishment and the bringing in
of offences which are not now expressed in the Clause. On the whole, therefore, I think we ought to agree with the Government and seek the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I say one further word? I have consulted my legal adviser, and I am fortified by his opinion that it is undesirable to make this change, because the Act of 1875 is the controlling Act in regard to the questions of boycotting and intimidation, and I think any prosecutions would take place under the provisions of that Act as interpreted by the particular Clause. I am still advised that it is desirable to leave the penalty exactly as it is in that Act rather than attempt to import a new penalty of fine or imprisonment here, because it is very important not to do anything that alters the exact legal signification of the offence under the Act of 1875.

Sir J. SIMON: No one wants to do that.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We want to be very careful not to enlarge the crime under that Act. While I am willing, of course, to consider any statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) or by the right hon. Gentleman, at present my view is that it is wiser to leave the Bill as it stands.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman press the Amendment?

Captain O'CONNOR: In the absence of any assurance from the Government that they will attempt so to amend the Clause as to give any indication of what the punishment is to be, I do not feel prepared to withdraw.

Amendment negatived.

Captain O'CONNOR: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, after the word "Section," to insert the words
and in Section seven of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.
This and the next Amendment stand together. It would appear that Sub-section (3) is entirely unnecessary if you insert my words in Sub-section (2). Although nothing very important is done
if the Amendment is carried out, it compresses the Clause, and I am perhaps sanguine enough to hope that some day trade unionists will turn to this Clause to find out what they can do when they are picketing, and, if so, it would be very handy that they should have it in as compressed a form as possible. You could put Sub-section (3) into Sub-section (2) in the interests of conciseness without altering the principle of the Clause.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his endeavour to improve the drafting of the Bill. Again, the proposal is not only not better than that of the Government, but is not so good. What he asks is that we should make the Bill shorter and put into Sub-section (2) an intimation altering the meaning of "intimidation" in the Act of 1875. Sub-section (2) declares what the expression "to intimidate" means under this Bill. Sub-section (3) declares the meaning of "intimidation" in the Act of 1875 to be the same as in this Bill. I quite agree that it would be possible to put those two into one Sub-section, but, when we are dealing with an important alteration in the meaning of a word in the Act of 1875, it is desirable that there should be a distinct and separate Subsection. The only difference between my hon. and learned Friend and the Government is that we put these two meanings of intimidation in separate Sub-sections while my hon. and learned Friend desires to combine them. There is something to be said far his view, but I still think the better course, when von are going to alter the meaning of an Act passed as lone ago as 1875, is not to slip it into a Sub-section dealing with another point but put it in a completely separate Subsection. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will see that the drafting is not quite so bad as he thought.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to political fund.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out the words "at any" and to insert instead thereof the words "he has at some."
This and the following Amendment are both matters of drafting owing to an alteration in Committee. The words
before the date upon which the contribution is first levied
as the Bill now reads would govern both the delivery of the notice in writing of willingness to contribute and the failure to withdraw the notice which, of course, makes nonsense. We are proposing to alter that so as to make the Clause read
and unless he has at some time after the commencement of this Act and before he is first thereafter required to make such a contribution delivered at the head office.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, leave out from the word "before" in line 31, to the word "delivered" in line 32, and insert instead thereof the words "he is first thereafter required to make such a contribution."—(The Attorney-General.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, after the word "notice" to insert the words
may be delivered personally or by any authorised agent and any notice.
This is designed to carry out a pledge I gave to the Opposition in Committee. I was asked to make clear what I assured the Committee was the fact, that delivery might be made either personally or by any authorised agent, and I undertook to put in words which would make that position clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ALBERY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, after the word "union" to insert the words "who has not claimed exemption."
This is an attempt to clarify a little to the lay mind a Clause which at present is quite adequate to those who have legal knowledge. As it reads at present it states that until 31st December, 1927, it shall be lawful to require any member of a trade union to contribute to the political fund as if this Act had not been passed. In view of the fact that it will largely be administered by gentlemen who, however intimate their knowledge of trade union affairs may be, are not always so intimate as regards legal matters, and in view of the fact that there have already been certain rather serious misrepresentations as to the meaning of the Act, I thought it would
be an added security if some such words as these could be inserted to put it beyond all doubt that it is only intended that those members of trade unions who have not already contracted out should be liable to contribute again.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am not at all sure that these words are entirely apt words to carry out the intention, but in the lay mind doubt sometimes arises as to the meaning of such a word as "require," which is used in Sub-section (4). I am inclined myself to think the words
as if this Act had not been passed
make it quite clear that no one would be required to pay unless he was actually liable under the Act of 1913, but the fact should be made clear either by a statement in the House or by an Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Although the Government are unable to accept the Amendment, I am glad my hon. Friends have seen fit to move it. The reason we cannot accept it is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has said, because the words are not quite apt to effect the purpose for which they are designed. If we were to put in the phrase
who has not claimed exemption,
anyone who has claimed exemption, although he would not have claimed in such a way as to excuse him from liability under the 1913 Act, would be able to say he came within Section 4 and was relieved of liability. That is not the intention of those who put forward the Amendment, but I think they will see it would, in fact, be the effect. I said that I was glad the Amendment had been moved, and I am glad for this reason, that, as my hon. Friends have said, it is very important that the position should be made clear, and the moving of this Amendment enables me to make it clear, as far as I can, by any statement in this House. As my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Amendment said, the words "as if this Act had not been passed" show quite plainly that the effect of Sub-section (4) is merely to preserve the existing position until the 31st December, 1927. That is to say that when this Sub-section is passed, anyone who at present is exempt
from liability by reason of his having claimed exemption under the 1913 Act remains exempt from liability and cannot be called upon to contribute. The only effect of Sub-section (4) is to preserve intact the existing position until the end of the present year.

Major HARVEY: I think it is necessary to make it absolutely clear as to when a man is exempt, and to make it quite certain that although he may apply for exemption he must not, by mistake, fail to obtain exemption. I am in favour of the Amendment. In this connection I would like to point to a case which I raised in this House on Wednesday, 25th May. I dare say it will be within the recollection of the House that I read a statement from a constituent of mine, who said that although he had put in a claim for exemption, he still paid the same amount as men who had not claimed exemption. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is unable to be present. He told me that he had an appointment elsewhere, and regretted that he would not be here, because I propose to refer to what he said. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman rose in his place, and he corrected my statement, or said that it was not correct. It has not, I may say, up to now been disproved as far as I can see. What the right hon. Gentleman said in effect was, "The statement cannot be true because the funds are separate."
I am not quite sure that these funds really are separate. I have seen the columns which are provided in the contribution cards of the particular union to which I refer—the National Union of Railwaymen. There are columns for a good many things, but they have not got a column for a political levy. After I had read that statement, this particular constituent of mine saw in print that there was a mistake in the date which he gave, and he informed me of the mistake, and I immediately corrected it. After I had made my personal statement, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, made a long statement, in the course of which he said that my statement was not only incorrect in that, but in other ways. He said:
I now find that the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member is not only inaccurate, but I have here the man's card.
He did not join the union until 1917, and he is shown as having been expelled from the union through arrears of contribution."—[OFFicIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1927 col. 215, Vol. 207.]
The position was left in that unfortunate position all through the Whitsuntide Recess, and my constituent was held up to his fellow workmen as having been expelled from his union because he was in arrear with his contributions. It was unfortunate that at that time I was unable to reply and clear his name. There are two things to which I would like to refer in connection with his case. One is that the man very naturally——

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. This Amendment, as I understand it, is seeking to make certain that any person who is at present exempt from the political levy shall not be called upon to pay before the end of December, 1927. I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not an Amendment on which a personal explanation should be made concerning a controversy between two hon. Members which arose on an Amendment dealing with the whole question of the political levy. I submit that this subject does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has proceeded far enough for me to be able to take that view at the moment, The Amendment is to insert the words "who has not claimed exemption," and the belief is that the Bill is not clear as to the position of persons who have made that claim. I understand it is from that point of view that the hon. and gallant Member is making his statement.

Major HARVEY: That is so. There are two things to which I wish to refer. One is the unfortunate position in which this man was left because of the stigma which attached to him of having been expelled from the Union owing to his arrears of contributions, and the other is, as far as I can make out, that although he had claimed exemption he never appeared to have secured exemption. I want to make sure that a man who claims exemption really secures exemption. If he is exempted from the payment of the political levy he should not have to pay it. I have seen a long correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and this
constituent of mine, but I think I should really be out of order in entering into it. I have seen that man, and I have seen other men in the same branch of the same union, and they, in fact, say, and acknowledge, that although men have claimed exemption from the political levy, they are still paying the same amount of contribution to the National Union of Railwaymen as those who have not claimed exemption. For these reasons, I really feel that the clearer this Bill is made in this respect the better it will be. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will not accept this Amendment, because some of the members of the unions appear to be rather unbusinesslike. In this case, for instance, the man said that he signed, and handed in, a claim for exemption from the political levy, and that is denied by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a further point of Order. Is a matter affecting the whole question of the political levy and the way unions administer it in order on this Amendment? If it be in order, I do not object.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is in order to go into the whole question. It appears to be relevant to the actual Amendment before us for an hon. Member to endeavour to make the position clear with regard to people who claim exemption. On the Report stage, we do not have a Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Major HARVEY: I think I have explained the case quite sufficiently to be able to leave it as it is. I said that I support the Amendment, and I very much regret that the Attorney-General has not accepted it.

Mr. CLYNES: It may be that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) will have something to say on the particular case which has been brought forward. I only rise to say that it is extremely unfortunate that hon. Members should bring forward individual cases in this House, and submit them either for the purposes of test or explanation. This House cannot make itself into a Court to determine the grievances of individual members of unions who may have cause to be aggrieved in their relations with their
particular branches. There is a properly constituted Court for this purpose—the Registrar. If any aggrieved member, after having applied for exemption or before having applied for exemption, has a case in which he can show that injustice has been done to him, either in respect of his rights in the union or in respect to the contributions which he is required to pay, his case may be reported in the common form provided for in the Act of Parliament. How rare are these cases has been shown by the figures supplied by the Registrar himself. The Registrar has shown, as the result of questions asked in this House, that out of the millions of men who are called upon by their own decision to pay these political levies, only a total of 13 cases in a year have been recorded, showing that in that connection they have no ground whatever for grievance. Without going into the merits of anyone of them now, I suggest that it is doing no good to the interests of an individual workman in relation to his employment, and to his peaceful relations with his own fellow workmen, to make him the subject of a political and party argument in the House of Commons. The matter ought to be left to the proper tribunal, namely, the Registrar.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Totnes (Major Harvey) for informing me in advance that he proposed raising this particular issue on this particular Amendment. Unfortunately, I was engaged in another Committee. I only want to say that I do not think it has any bearing upon this particular Amendment. This individual case was raised when the same issue of the political levy was under discussion. He said to the Committee, in substance, this is a case that proves that there is abuse, and which justifies him in taking the action he did—I am summarising it. Incidentally, he will remember, he made a mistake in the date which was afterwards corrected. I knew nothing of the case. I immediately made investigation, and the thing I did was to write to the only recognised authority, the Registrar. The existing law, without any recognition of any Amendment of any sort or kind, provides that any man feeling aggrieved is entitled to appeal to the Registrar. I at once felt that if any appeal had been made, it was my duty to investigate it.
I wrote to the Registrar and received a reply from him the next day, which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, said distinctly that, as far as he was aware, no complaint of any sort or kind was made by this particular individual. That in itself would at least show that whatever might have been the ground of complaint as far as the individual himself was concerned, he had not taken advantage of, or exercised the privilege given by, the existing law. But I did not stop there. I think I have said before that in my own union there are 65,000 members who claimed exemption. I said to the House, and I repeat it now, "I defy anybody in any branch of my union to know who those individuals are." I make that definite assertion. Sixty-five thousand members in my union, and I think it will be agreed that if any union benefits by Parliamentary representation it is my own union. No one will dispute that. Incidentally, let me say, since the matter has been raised, I have made inquiries, and I find that in a number of cases—and it may surprise the House to know this—the people who claim exemption—I do not mean because of meanness in regard to the payment of the shilling or anything like that, but on strong political views-are even branch chairmen of my own particular union. That would indicate that there is no prejudice. I have followed up the hon. and gallant Member's case. In the first place, he said that the funds of our union are not kept separate. I think he said that to-day

Major HARVEY: Not paid separately.

Mr. THOMAS: I thought the hon. and gallant Member said that they were not kept separately.Surely, he cannot be aware of the existing law. Surely no hon. Member opposite can assume that all that has to be done is to say to the member, "Here is a book. Will you pay your political levy?" "Here is another book. Will you pay your trade union levy?" What happens, as the hon. and gallant Member must be aware, is that on each contribution card there is an item, "political levy"; another item, "trade union contribution." and so on. I understood the hon. and gallant Member to allege that our funds were not kept separately; but I assume that he did not mean that, because, not
only are they kept separate, but they are submitted separately to the Registrar.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The right hon. Member says that on the ordinary contribution card of the National Union of Railwaymen the political levy is shown as a separate item.

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I should like to see one.

Mr. THOMAS: I will show you 500,000. We shall have an opportunity of Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill, and if my hon. and learned Friend has been basing same of his arguments on this misapprehension, I am sure he will be the first to correct it.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I only asked the question because the other day I saw a number of contribution cards of the National Union of Railwaymen, and on not one of those cards was there the slightest mention of the political levy. I do not say that it is not kept as a separate item in the books of the union. That is another matter.

Mr. THOMAS: As the hon. and learned Member knows, it must be kept as a separate item in the books, but I am not now dealing with the books but with the contribution cards, and I repeat the statement that on the contribution card each item is separate. The member referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Major Harvey) wrote a letter to me. It is not unusual for members of my union to write letters to me. Since the matter was raised in the House—I did not know that this particular man, whose wages are not very high, possessed a typewriter—I have noticed that the last letter which I have received from him was typewritten. I think the hon. and gallant Member knows something about it. In the charge which the hon. and gallant Member made, he said that this particular member, after he had claimed exemption, was charged precisely the same contribution.

Major HARVEY indicated assent.

Mr. THOMAS: That is perfctly true. He paid precisely the same contribution for the period that ħe remained in membership. Is it complained that that is wrong? The hon. and gallant Member,
apparently, was not aware that, under the existing law, when any individual claims exemption, the exemption operates from the January following. The hon. and gallant Member seems to have been confused. He seems to have assumed that when the man claimed exemption from the payment of one shilling per annum, the payment would stop on the day that he claimed the exemption. What happened was, that this particular member paid his one shilling per annum for the benefits which he received from Parliamentary representation, from the date that he claimed exemption to the end of the period and no longer. His real grievance was, I understand, that had he only claimed 4½ months earlier he would have benefited by 4½d., but he did not claim the 4½d. The individual concerned knows that he is not victimised. He knows that he is not suffering, as has been alleged in some quarters. At an open public meeting in Newton Abbot, at which the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes was present, although he was a member of the union, he got up and made a statement.

Major HARVEY: He was not then a member.

Mr. THOMAS: He was not a member of the union because he had lapsed his membership. I ask the House to observe what is meant by all the talk about intimidation and the fear of consequences. Here is a man who had all the benefits of the union; a man in the privileged position of a railwayman, as is alleged from many quarters opposite. He had all the advantages secured by the trade union, and, as far as victimisation is concerned, at an open meeting—I am not complaining, but I am only trying to show that no one interfered with him—he stated his grievance to the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. and gallant Member missed the point and jumped a few years. The net result of the complaint is, that the member did not complain to the Registrar, as is provided for under the existing Act; he made no complaint to the branch secretary; he lapsed his membership and no complaint was made; he received all the advantages that the union secured for him and is not now a member, and no attempt at compulsion of any sort or
kind has been made; the funds are kept separate. I put it to the House that these facts prove that under the existing law there is adequate protection for every member of every trade union organisation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I felt bound to allow the right hon. Gentleman a full opportunity of reply, and in the result I find that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was quite right——

Mr. BUCHANAN: You generally find that I am.

Mr. SPEAKER: —when he said that this subject is a long way from the Amendment before the House.

Mr. ALBERY: In view of the statement made by the Attorney-General, and with the assent of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves Lord), I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member object to the withdrawal?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I object. The chief grievance of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that on the contribution cards there is no definite item for the payment of the levy.

Mr. ALBERY: I did not mention that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: One of the sponsors for the Amendment did. Some unions have deliberately cut out the item of the political levy, because the Conservative members of the union asked that it should be cut out. If you put on the contribution card a separate item for the political levy, the shop steward in collecting the contributions would know that a particular man did not pay the political levy. Some unions deliberately left out this item in order that no member could be pointed at as not having paid the political levy. Hon. Members opposite are never satisfied. If you leave out the political levy item, you are wrong; if you put it in, you are victimising; if you do something else you are trying to hide your funds. They ought to try to be sportsmen. If we put the political levy item on the card, the member who does not pay it must stand the consequences. When we take it out, the result is that
it is not possible to know who does not pay the levy. Speaking of the union with which I have been associated for a long time, I know that we deliberately left it out in order to give a Conservative member a chance in a shop of not being pointed at for not paying the levy. This talk about victimisation is sheer nonsense.

Mr. ALBERY: In view of the statement made by the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), we should like to know whether this particular item is on the contribution card or not.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In certain unions, in my own union, for instance, the contribution card is simple. There is one column for the contribution paid, and there are two other columns, one for superannuation and another for branch funds. The branch funds include the political fund and the fund for general branch purposes. Originally we had the political fund mentioned separately; but men complained, in a big shipbuilding yard, for instance, that if they were pointed at as persons who did not pay the political levy there might be a chance of their not being picked out for a job. Therefore, the political fund was grouped among the branch funds so far as the card was concerned, and by that means the chances of victimisation were reduced. The big bulk of the unions, at the request of their Conservative members, decided not to put in a separate item for the political levy on the contribution card, but other unions put it in. Hon. Members opposite want secret ballots when it suits them. The method which I have explained was deliberately adopted to prevent any semblance of victimisation, and now hon. Members opposite complain.

Mr. ALBERY: The only reason I asked the question was because I understood the right hon. Member for Derby to say that his union does show the item, and the hon. Member for Gorbals says that in his experience unions do not show it.

Mr. THOMAS: I have asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) whether his union show it, and he says precisely the same thing that has been said by the hon. Member for Gorbals. But there are
other unions that do show it, and my union is one of them, My union do show it.

Commander WILLIAMS: Always? In all cases? Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure?

Mr. THOMAS: The branch contribution card is determined by the branch itself, and not by the head office.

Commander WILLIAMS: Then it may not be so.

Mr. THOMAS: Of course. It is determined by the democratic vote of the men in the locality.

Mr. ALBERY: Then why did you say it was done in every case?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Each union its own practice. If a member on a separate item for the political fund to be shown on the contribution card, it means that the position as affecting himself must be known by his fellow-workers. The members will discuss his conduct. Therefore, in certain unions the item was deliberately left out for the purpose of safeguarding members. It does not matter to me whether we carry the Amendment or not. The net result is the same. The issue before us is not a question of December, 1927, but the general question of a party being kept up by the workers, and a few months do not matter one way or another. The whole question is that of a bigger and broader principle.

Amendment negatived.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out the words, "the foregoing Sub-section," and to insert instead thereof the words,
this Section, or for the purposes of the Trade Union Act, 1913, as amended by this Act, which require approval by the Registrar.
This is substantially a drafting Amendment. Its second purpose is to make it clear that the executive authorities under Sub-section (5) are included in the term "delegates" used in the corresponding Section of the Act of 1913. In practice the word "delegates" in that Sub-section has been treated by the Registrar as covering the executive or other governing bodies, but he may find difficulty in doing that if the other
words were used in this Clause. I propose therefore, to leave out the words, "the foregoing Sub-section" and to insert words which make this Sub-section (5) cover the corresponding situation under the 1913 Act.

Mr. CLYNES: Our objections have been stated to the Clause generally and the House is familiar with them. I do not desire the smallest degree that we should be a party to improving the Clause for the purpose of meeting its object, and I do not see that this Amendment is

so innocent as it would appear from the statement from the Attorney-General. Inasmuch as my conclusion is that this Amendment, if inserted, would have the effect of increasing the difficulties and inconvenience to individual members and to trade unions, I hope that from this side we shall resist it.

Questions put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 211.

Division No. 196.]
AYES.
[7. 5p. m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir H.(Orkney & Shetland)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smillie, Robert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith. Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, W.(Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford T. W.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D
Taylor, R. A


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H.C.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clowes, S.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G.R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mosley, Oswald
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Murnin, H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Owen, Major G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. -Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gardner, J. P.
Potts, John S.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Purcell, A. A.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Riley, Ben
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenall, T.
Ritson, J.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams. David (Swansea, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T.W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Windsor. Walter


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Sexton, James



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. B. Smith,


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Burman, J. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Albery, Irving James
Berry, Sir George
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bethel, A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Caine, Gordon Hall


Apsley, Lord
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Campbell, E. T.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Blundell, A. N.
Carver, Major W. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bourne. Captain Robert Croft
Cassels, J. D.


Balniel, Lord
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Brass, Captain W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Radford, E. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Clayton, G. C.
Hilton, Cecil
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remnant, Sir James


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rentoul, G. S.


Cooper, A. Duff
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cope, Major William
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cooper, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Robinson, Sir T.(Lanes., Stretford)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Rye, F. G.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume, Sir G.H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Dawson. Sir Philip
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandon, Lord


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Jacob, A. E.
Savery, S. S.


Drewe, C.
Jephcott, A.R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Duckworth, John
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Skelton, A. N.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ellis, R. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Elveden, Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


England, Colonel A.
Long, Major Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fermoy, Lord
Lumley, L. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S.R.


Fleiden, E.B.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thom, Lt. -Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Finburgh, S.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macintyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fremantle, Lieut,-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Gadie, Lieut-Col. Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watts, Dr. T.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Goff, Sir Park
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Gower, Sir Robert
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Withers, John James


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hanbury, C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hartington, Marquess of
Perring, Sir William George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)



Haslam, Henry C.
Power, Sir John Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hawke, John Anthony
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Mr. F.C. Thomson and Captain


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Preston, William
Margesson


Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.



Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Regulations as to organisa- tions of which established civil ser- vants may be members.)

Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I move this Amendment with no very great hope either of receiving a sympathetic hearing from the Treasury Bench or even of obtaining any reply whatsoever to any point which I shall endeavour to urge. The position is that I have already spoken on this subject on two
occasions in this House, once dining the course of the discussion on the Address and once during the Second Beading, when, I venture to hope, I submitted one or two points of substance for the consideration of the Government. In fact, one Member of the Government was good enough to say that a case of some substance was submitted during the course of the Second Reading, mid unless I am misinformed, and unless I have been unconscious of statements made in this House which would have been of special interest to me, no attempt whatever has been made to deal with the case which on those two occasions I ventured to submit to the House.
As far as I know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present on the occasion of either of the two speeches to which I have referred. I should not venture to hope that he has read what I had to say, and, at the same time, I cannot have sufficient courage to weary the House with a repetition of the argument which I ventured to put forward on those previous occasions. But it is essential that I should repeat the statement which I made on both occasions, namely, that the general strike offered the Government absolutely no justification whatever for the inclusion of Clause 5 in the present Bill. On the occasion of the Second Reading I read to the House a very carefully prepared statement in order that the facts with regard to the general strike and the Civil Service Unions might be placed in a position of absolute certainty, and I really must ask the House to be patient with me, because I consider that this statement is of sufficient importance to warrant it being read a second time. The statement reads:
On the occasion of the general strike it is true that some of the Civil Service trade unions placed their funds at the disposal of the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, but it is perfectly clear that by doing so they did not amend or suspend their rules and could only offer such assistance as those rules empowered them to give. The General Council were subsequently informed by the Civil Service trade unions that they had no power to instruct their members to withdraw their labour even if such requests were made. The General Council never imagined or desired that civil servants would do more than subscribe funds. No Civil Service organisation was at any stage of the strike called upon to take an active part in it.
It is perfectly clear that the Government are conscious of the truth of this statement because in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this in reply to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon):
I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member opposite about the Civil Service and the general strike, and I would like to point out that out of 220,000 established civil servants, I think only 40 were guilty of actively participating in the strike.
Let me interpolate here that, as far as I am informed, none of the 40 acted on the request or instruction of the leaders of their trade organisation, and certainly
none of the 40 belonged to any organisation for which I have any title to speak. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:
Therefore, we are not dealing with evils which have yet come into the field of practical politics to any great extent. Nevertheless, we are legislating in good time before that impartial loyalty which is now given to ail parties has been perverted and a situation created where each party has its own friends and favourites and enemies in the Civil Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1927; col. 70, Vol. 207.]
One might almost hope, with honourable opponents, that the statement I have read to the House, plus the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would place this matter beyond the power of misrepresentation, but I find that the National Union of Conservative Associations have issued a pamphlet in which they say:
The majority of civil servants know full well that as employés of tile Crown they are at the service of any Government which may be in power. It has for years been the unwritten law of the Service that no civil servant should take a prominent part eiher in national or local politics. This unwritten law has very recently, been flagrantly violated by a certain minority of the Civil Service, and during the general strike threats were made of a sympathetic cessation of work by a certain union belonging to that Service. It is essential for the good of the Service as a whole that the former well-established rule should be restored and respected.
I submit, most respectfully, that the two statements I have just read cannot be reconciled with this partisan statement, but it does give the key to this Clause, if not to the whole Bill. When we seek for an explanation of the Government's action we have to turn again to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30th May, when, with greater candour than some of his colleagues, he gave us, I believe, the whole of the facts. He said:
The increasing politicalisation of the trade unions and their increasing intermixture with controversial party politics has emphasised the position, and for some years there has been a great deal of anxiety not only outside the Civil Service but amongst very powerful sections inside the Civil Service at the increasing extent to which civil servants seem to be associated with controversial party politics, and identify themselves with the fortunes of one particular political party."—[OFFICIAT. REPORT, 30th May, 1927; col. 69. Vol. 207.]
No one could place the facts in a clearer or plainer light. I am perfectly
satisfied in my own mind that the action of the organisation to which I have the honour to belong in supporting the Labour party, not for any advantage to be directly secured from affiliation with the Labour party but because we believe that the Labour policy is the correct national policy, and the action of that organisation in trying to strengthen the ranks of Labour in this House has led to Clause 5 being included in this Bill. But my real difficulty with regard to this Clause is due to the fact that the Government have made no attempt whatever to give an impartial consideration to this problem. The political motive has actuated this Clause. The Government might have made some pretence at an impartial consideration. This is no new subject. It has been carefully considered by the MacDonnell Commission and the Blanesburgh Committee, neither of which body supported my own political views, but what is clear is this, that in considering, not the withdrawal of the rights we now possess, but in considering the possibility of the extension of the rights we now possess the Blanesburgh Committee did report that many members of that body were of the opinion that a case existed for an extension as far as the poorly paid grades were concerned, and in those circumstances it is altogether unsatisfactory that the Government should introduce this Clause into a Measure designed to deal with a totally different problem, and solely for the purpose of withdrawing from the Labour party the financial and moral support of the two organisations representing the more poorly paid grades in the Civil Service.
Instead of taking this action and endeavouring to take from us valuable rights, I am hopeful that we shall go a step forward and follow the example of New South Wales and France and extend to the Civil servant the right to stand as candidate for Parliament. I know of no case which justifies the Government as an employer of labour mixing up its functions as a Government and an employee of labour. It is essential that State ownership and enterprise should be rapidly extended, and it would be perfectly ridiculous to combine an extension of State ownership with the disfranchisement of the men employed in the mining and railway industries. There is no case for Clause 5, and 1 believe that a careful
examination of the report of the MacDonnell Commission and the Blanesburgh Committee——

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Who has ever proposed to disfranchise them?

Mr. BAKER: There is no proposal in the Bill to disfranchise them, but I do not know why the Government hesitate to do it. It is very kind of the Government to say that a postman shall be free to record his vote. The Solicitor-General the other day definitely stated that under Clause 5, and under this Bill, a, postman would be able to be Chairman of the Labour party. It is not so; and I say that there is nothing in the duties of a postman or of the vast majority of men and women in the Civil Service which should preclude them from enjoying and fulfilling the whole of their citizen rights and duties. I would not trouble the House with any remarks to-night but for some statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He seemed to justify this particular Clause on quite another ground. I do not suppose for a moment that he will accept my view that it is a political move against the Labour party, but in Column 62 he said:
The position of the established civil servant is a coveted position. I think that, for the Civil Service as a whole, there are between two and three candidates for every vacancy and the status of an established civil servant is a greatly desired status. To be permanenty employed, to be employed all your working life and to be pensionable at the end of your service, and to have these advantages guaranteed, not by a private employer, who may rise or fall owing to the competitive accidents of the world of business, but by a strong, stable State and nation—these are conditions which are greatly desired and greatly valued and cherished by a very large number of people in the country. It is only to this class of established civil servants, permanent and pensionable, that the special provisions of this Clause apply. We consider that, in view of their special permanent and pensionable position, the State is entitled to demand from them a particular relationship; and the object of the State, in giving these special conditions, is to secure faithful service in all circumstances in the hour of need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1927; col. 62, Vol. 207.]
I am not at all sure, desirable as security may be, that everyone is prepared to sacrifice his citizen rights and political liberty in order to secure this security. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be amused at this
but if he cares to came to the City of Bristol he will be able to see thousands of ex-Service men who are unable to obtain a position, and he need not be surprised, therefore, that ex-Service men who can obtain positions in the Post Office apply for them to the extent of three to one. That does not make them coveted positions. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer covet such a position? There are 300,000 civil servants in this country, and 150,000 receive a total remuneration of less than £3 a week, including bonus, while 225,000 receive less than £4 a week. I regard many of our opponents as gentlemen who may almost be members of the Labour party, but for rich men to behave to poor men in the way in which some of our opponents behave in relation to this problem is caddish. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have a little more regard to the feelings of men and women in the Civil Service, who, admittedly, have rendered loyal service to the Crown and State through a long series of years. He should not throw at them the suggestion that, because of the present state of unemployment in the outside world, they are seeking a privileged position. The people in the Civil Service earn a great deal more than they receive in remuneration. I trust that that sort of attack will not be continued.
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not stop there. He told a deputation that the Government were anxious to introduce this Clause in order to avoid the introduction of the spoils system into this country. The spoils system, so far as I know, exists in one country and in one country only, to any great extent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House referred in less direct language to the spoils system. All I have to say is that there is no justification for such a statement or charge. The Civil Service of the country is recruited on an open competition basis for the main part, and the bulk of the people who are not so recruited secure their positions after service with the forces of the Crown. Where the nomination and patronage system is retained it is not to the advantage of the poorer grades in the Civil Service; it is retained in the interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's class and their descendants. There is no justification whatever for
talking about the spoils system in this country. I am really amazed that such a line of attack should be taken on this question.
There is one further point I wish to make, and that is in regard to the representation of special interests in this House. Here, perhaps, I should be forgiven if I say a word or two of a somewhat personal character. In this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
Secondly, we hold very strongly to the view that a Member of Parliament ought to represent a constituency. If the House of Commons is to preserve its historic character and meet the many dangers that menace it and that menace all Parliamentary institutions, I am sure that the less we have of Members representing particular interests, or particular groups, and the more we have of Members who come here to represent the Commons of Britain, the better, more efficient, and more respected our Parliamentary institutions will be."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1927; col. 68, Vol. 207.]
The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) whom I had hoped to see here and who is not present, was good enough in the Debate to deal with a somewhat similar point, and I would like to thank him, even indirectly, for his kindly references to myself during that discussion. The substance of the point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the hon. Member for Finchley was that my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell and myself were in this House to represent special interests. I want to say, first, that the Rouse of Commons has no objection to the representation of special interests. The House of Commons welcomes the railway director; the House of Commons welcomes the man who can speak on behalf of the Federation of British Industries; and, so far as I know, the House of Commons never takes the slightest objection to the presence of a Member, provided that the money which pays for his entrance is obtained from rent, profit or interest. But if a person like myself comes here, whose passage is made possible by the contributions of his colleagues in a similarly lowly status in life, it apparently is an immoral and most deplorable thing.
I make no apology for the fact that I am not in a financial position to pay my own election expenses. It may very well be that the old saving is true, that anyone who turns his attention to making
money can succeed. I do not know because I have never tried. I am here as a result of 90,000 men and women in the Post Office service having been good enough to express a desire for my presence here, and because they have been good enough to subscribe in order that my expenses might be paid. But I would not have the House believe for a moment that I am here in any sense as a representative of the Post Office or of the Civil Service. The hon. Member for Finchley said:
It may come as a shock to the nerves of those hon. Members whom I have named when I inform them that there is a very considerable section of the Civil Service who would most happily surrender that privilege"—
of being supposedly represented by us—
who are strongly opposed to this form of political levy, and do not regard those hon. Members as representative of them selves as individuals or as civil servants in any way whatever."—[OFFICIAL REPORt. 30th May, 1927; col. 78, Vol. 207.]
All I can say, in reply to that, is that I do not claim to represent the Civil Service in this House. I do not claim to represent the Post Office in this House. All I claim is that 90,000 men and women who were colleagues of mine in the Post Office were good enough and generous enough to make it possible for me to come here to represent a constituency and to support the Labour party. So far as I know no member of the Post Office, and no Post Office organisation, look to me to make any return whatever for the contributions they are good enough to make. I stand here to-night representing the political Division of East Bristol, and I believe that I have been a good and faithful representative of the people in that Division. I challenge anyone to say that I have ever been detected in claiming to speak for the Civil Service.
My complaint about the Government's action is that they have seen fit to tell disinterested persons in the Post Office who have subscribed money towards the election expenses of my colleague and myself that they were self-seeking, that they were endeavouring to exploit the political system to their own personal advantage, and I say most emphatically that those charges and suggestions are absolutely untrue. I fear that the process of reasoning whereby supporters of the Government arrive at their conclusions
follows a very peculiar course. I read a good deal of their literature, and I have often come to the conclusion that their method of reasoning is to find an exceptional case and then to lay that down as representing a general law. Too much of their political propaganda and proposals for legislation is built up of that sort of thing. Although there is no hope here to-day of persuading the Government to change their point of view, although there is no hope of securing the elimination of this Clause of the Bill, yet I sincerely hope that, this protest having been made, it will have some effect upon the mentality of the Government, so far as future events are concerned.

Mr. SNELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot claim to have any special information respecting the details of the Civil Service and the relationships that may exist between the different grades of its staff; but it may not be inappropriate that one who is interested only because many of his constituents are interested should express an average general view on this matter. The main objections to this Clause are not very difficult to state. Our first objection is that there was absolutely no need for this Clause to be included in the Bill. The Bill claims to commend itself to the public because of what was called the general strike of last year, but the outstanding fact of the matter is that the Civil Service did not strike, that there was no likelihood of their striking, and that they never intended to strike. They have not a strike fund at their disposal and they are not organised for the purpose. But the Government, in its wisdom, has seen fit to drag in this highly contentious and altogether unnecessary feature in a Bill which deals with other purposes. That is one of our chief objections-that the Government is here exposing itself to the suggestion that it has been rattled and is undertaking legislation not for anything that did happen but for something that may happen.
I am not sure whether it is in accordance with the practice of this House, or in accordance with the political history of our country, that you should seek to penalise men for something they have not done rather than for something they have done. As a Member of this House who has to deal with many civil servants
and very frequently, my experience is that efficiency is their policy, that above everything else they desire to do their work in a way which will bring them self-satisfaction and pride, and it is that Departmental pride, found throughout the service, which the Government is through this Clause criticising or rather throwing a reflection upon. I hold, therefore, that the Civil Service did not deserve that this indignity should be put upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he spoke on the last occasion, said that so mild and gentle was this Clause that when it became law no average civil servant would know that it had been passed. But the civil servant will know this—that he is cut off from association with his fellows in the country; he will know that this Government is isolating him and setting him as a class apart from the rest of the workers with whom in ordinary life he has to associate. I suggest that that creation of an isolated bureaucracy is bad politics and is a bad outlook altogether for the nation. I would have said chat if anything would commend what we call the bureaucracy of the country to the people as a whole, it would be that no political distinctions were made between them, that a man who was employed by the Government directly he got out of his office and away from the discipline and routine of his profession, was a citizen free to mix with his fellows, and they, mixing with him, would understand what his work was, and they would have a sort of rough partnership in what he was doing.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Nothing in this Clause prevents such a civil servant mixing with his fellow servants.

Mr. SNELL: The civil servant may not mix with his fellows if they have political views. Of course he can mix with them at a football match, but not at a labour meeting where they have to decide upon certain things.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly; there is nothing to prevent him attending a political meeting.

Mr. SNELL: He cannot be represented through his Civil Service association, acting in consort with his fellows in political matters. That isolates him. It puts him into a class apart, and I suggest it does a great disservice to the
Civil Service. I have no desire to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, but, to me, the outstanding difficulty in regard to this Clause is that the Government have not thought fit to distinguish between people in the Civil Service, who are responsible for policy and those who do routine work. Had the Government said in relation to Clause 5 that many of the higher grade civil servants are really advisers of the Government, and have a part in the policy of the nation, and that it would be inappropriate that they should take part in political controversy, one would have understood the logic behind that view. But to apply this principle to a ledger clerk, or a postman, to a person who works under orders, and under strict Departmental discipline, seems to be altogether unnecessary, and is, I suggest, inadvisable.
The final point I desire to make is in regard to partnership in industry. I thought we were groping our way in English politics towards the time when the worker would be associated with the department, the manager, the board, the directorate—the employer in whatever form—for the good of the firm. I understood that the outlook for British industry depended on the worker's association with his employers in the management of industry. Here the employer of the civil servant happens to be the Parliament of this land, and they are not to be allowed to approach Parliament in an organised way, and presumably, they are not to have organised political views of their own. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is enough of a political scientist to know that this is going to make real difficulties, and in creating this anomaly between one class of workers and another, the Government are doing a great disservice to the country. My last word is a repetition of what I said on a previous occasion. If the Government were wise, they would leave the Civil Service alone. It is an efficient service, it is a clean, a pure, an incorruptible service. It knows no distinction between Governments. Its members devote themselves loyally to their tasks, and to put upon such a service this indignity is a thing that ought not to be contemplated.

Sir HARRY FOSTER: I need hardly say I do not agree with the general purport of the speech to which we have just
listened. I think the Clause as a whole is not only a wise Clause, but one very much to be desired in the interests of an efficient Government service. I do not believe any large number of people in the Civil Service object to the general principle, and certainly, they do not regard themselves as being made a segregated class by these proposals. I wish to snake an appeal—probably I should not have another opportunity of making it—to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on two points, which have I think been overlooked in the drafting of this Clause. They require attention, because I do not think the effect of the Clause at present represents the intention. The first point is with regard to those who have been in the Civil Service and who have been superannuated. There can be no reason why these ex-civil servants should not be allowed to continue to give other members of the Civil Service in the Civil Service unions the benefit of their experience. In the Bill, as at present framed, they would be ineligible for this purpose, and if their membership of these unions were to continue it would constitute a breach of the Regulations proposed in the Bill. I have put down an Amendment which embodies my suggestion. When I brought the matter before the House during the Committee stage, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, but the Attorney-General promised that the matter would receive consideration.
I also wish to call attention to the extremely inelastic and severe provisions of Sub-section (2), the wording of which is quite exceptional. It leaves no discretion in the Treasury or anybody else to review a case, however small may be the offence which has been committed. If a civil servant knowingly contravenes, in the smallest degree, any of the provisions which are laid down here—however slight may be the breach of those provisions—he is ipso facto disqualified by this Clause from continuing to be a member of the Civil Service. In other words, there is no locus penitentice. If a civil servant has contravened any one of these provisions even in the most trifling manner there is no appeal. There is no power in the Treasury to act. He ceases automatically to be a member of the Civil Service.

Mr. DUNCAN: Treated like a worm.

Sir H. FOSTER: I do not want to use language of that kind, but I think that the wording is exceptionally severe and that the Clause cannot be intended to have such a result. There should surely be a discretion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself ought to have the power or the Lords of the Treasury ought to have the power to say whether the contravention is serious or trifling; but neither the Chancellor, nor the Cabinet, nor this House by a Resolution can do anything for the relief of the civil servant who comes under these provisions. There is no discretion in any Court or in any Judge to say that the offence was a trifling one, and that the penalties applicable under this Measure ought not to be enforced. I suggest that either here or in another place, the exceptional provisions of this Clause should be considered and some modifying words inserted which would give a discretion to somebody to give relief in such a case as I have indicated. Subject to these suggestions the Clause is one which I heartily support and I have no sympathy with the proposal that it should be omitted.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will it be in order to make reference to the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has clown on the Paper—in page 7 line 7, to insert the words
(b) any person employed at the commencement of this Act by or under the Crown who thereafter becomes an established civil servant from remaining, so long as he is not appointed to a position of supervision or management, a member of any trade union or organisation, not composed wholly or mainly of persons employed by or under the Crown, of which he is a member at the date when he so becomes an established civil servant, if under the rules thereof there has at that date accrued, or begun to accrue, to him a right to any future payment during incapacity, or by way of superannuation, or on the death of himself or his wife, or as provision for his children; or"?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, the present Amendment is to leave out the whole of the Clause. Although subsequent Amendments have been protected, we may not reach them, and it is in order to refer to the Clause as it stands, or as it may be amended.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: During the Committee stage of the Bill, I raised a question which chiefly affects employés in His Majesty's dockyards, and I would not like
to withhold my gratitude from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having to some extent met the point which I then raised. He has down an Amendment which virtually covers the grievance to which I referred on that occasion but it does not entirely cover it. As in his speech in reply to this Amendment he will probably deal with the whole subject, I would ask him now whether he would not be preferred to accept the two small Amendments to his Amendment which I have down on the Paper—to leave out the words "at the commencement of this Act" and to leave out the word "thereafter." The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment confines the relief which he is now giving to those employed "at the commencement of this Act." I see no valid reasons why those words should be used, restricting the exemption to those who happen to be employed at the commencement of the Act.
This is a time when many men are being discharged from His Majesty's dockyards, and men may be discharged on the day before this Act comes into operation. Other men may be discharged on the day afterwards. These men, in the natural course of things, hope to be re-employed in His Majesty's dockyards when the present state of emergency has subsided. Men are now being discharged for reasons of economy, but at a later stage these men may be re-engaged. They are registered at the Employment Exchanges, and they are probably men who have been employed for many years in the dockyards, and who hope to return to that employment. These men will not be permitted to remain members of their unions after they become established, and therefore the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a little illogical, because you will have two sets of men in the dockyards. There will be one set who, because they are employed in the higher capacities at the commencement of the Act may continue to belong to their unions, after they have been established, and there will be another set, who, having been discharged a day or two prior to the commencement of the Act, and subsequently re-employed, will not be able to remain members of their unions after establishment.
I feel certain the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point, and will
see that the Amendment would do an injustice as between the two categories of men and would do so to no particular purpose. It will bring no advantage to the Treasury, or to the Government as a whole, and if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to omit the words "at the commencement of this Act," I think it would remove one grievance. There are other words in the Amendment which are open to question. He gives this exemption conditionally on these men being entitled to some benefits from their trade unions. If they are entitled to some benefits, and are employed at the commencement of the Act, they can remain members of their unions. If they are not entitled to any particular benefits they cannot remain members of their unions. I fail to see why this restriction should be imposed. If you discharge a man from the dockyard, it does not matter whether he is entitled to benefit from his union or not. He has to belong to the trade union in order to get another job. On the general question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to his administration at the Admiralty and said he had been guided by the policy of establishing as many civil servants as possible.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In the dockyards.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I mean as many dockyard employés as possible. That generosity and wisdom of his have often been utilised by me in favour of the record of the Liberal party, because I
think it was a wise and proper provision. I hope that having taken credit for his past good deeds, he will carry them into further operation, and will give some undertaking that, while introducing this Clause, it will be the policy of the Government to establish as many dockyard men as possible. In future none of these established dockyard men will be able to belong to an outside trade union, and, if discharged, they will not be able to get any further employment. The higher men will not belong to a trade union if they hope to become established. It is only right and proper that some security of tenure should be given to them in return for what you are taking away from them, and that you should lay down a general policy and say that it will be in future the policy of His Majesty's Government to establish as many dockyard men as
possible, because the numbers established in recent years have been very small indeed and they bear a very small pro-Portion to the total of those employed in His Majesty's dockyards. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in making his general speech, he will be good enough to say whether he will grant this concession not only to men who happen by mere chance to be employed at the commencement of the Act, but to men who in future may become employed one day after its commencement.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and who represents a dockyard constituency, has made an appeal to me to make a concession in respect to the position of the future unestablished men who have not yet joined the Service. I cannot attempt to go so far as that. The principle of this Clause is that established civil servants must not retain their membership of outside unions, but it was pointed out at an early stage of the Bill that some of the existing established civil servants had claims, in virtue of their membership of those outside unions, which they would lose if they had to give it up; and, therefore, we say in our Clause that, if they are at the present time established and if they belong to such a union, then the Clause would not cover them and they might continue to be members of the outside union. Then one of my hon. Friends on this side of the House came along and said, "What about the unestablished man? He does not know whether he will be established or not. It may be many years before he is established, and meantime, he belongs to his trade union. When he is established will he be able to continue to belong to his union?" I think it was going a long way for me to meet that case and to delay the application of this part of the Clause for a very considerable period of time, measured by a good many years, perhaps 10 or 15 years in some cases. I have decided to meet the wishes which were expressed on this side of the House and also, I think, on the other side of the House, and provide not merely for the existing established civil servants, but also for the existing non-established civil servants. Unsatisfied with this, and indeed insatiable, the hon. Member (Mr. Hore Belisha)
comes forward and says, "You must now provide for the future unestablished men. You must provide that any man who may join the Civil Service at any future time, if he belongs to an outside union, may continue to retain his membership." To do that would be to make the Clause a dead letter, because never so long as the world goes round would any man employed in the Civil Service be required to sever his connection with any of the outside unions. That would push the Government to a point where all our labours would be brought to nought. I cannot go further than the long way I have already gone in putting down the Amendment which the Government have placed upon the Paper. That will delay the full effect of this provision for a period longer than quite a number of us are likely to see, and further than that I cannot go.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) has two Amendments on the Paper about which he spoke. He spoke of the position of retired civil servants. He said, "May not a retired civil servant remain in his union after he has retired on pension?" There are one or two Civil Service institutions which include retired civil servants, but we cannot feel that there is any necessity behind this request. There would be nothing to prevent the retired civil servant continuing to subscribe, if he thought fit, to the funds of his union, and, of course, he might, if he chooses, retain the most friendly personal relations with his old colleagues, but we do not think it necessary to insert an Amendment which would appear to depart from, the principle that the Civil Service trade unions are for the existing members of the Civil Service. Then an hon. Member asked about penalties. Anything connected with penalties is always very disagreeable to discuss. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth asks that we should insert, instead of the word "knowingly," the word "persistently," and that there should be an appeal tribunal consisting of one of His Majesty's Judges of the High Court. We could not possibly accept that Amendment. No one, as far as I am aware, has ever questioned the right of the Crown and the necessity for the Crown to have the power to maintain discipline
among its establishments by inflicting penalties for disobedience.

Sir H. FOSTER: I did not say a word in favour of the particular Amendment. I only desired to call attention to the fact that the Clause is so worded that for any breach or contravention, however trifling, ipso facto the man ceases to be a civil servant. That was my point.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not the fact.The offence in question is "knowingly." It is not a question of inadvertence, but "knowingly," and it is right that a man should be made aware that if he knowingly affronts the law and breaks the conditions of his tenure, he disqualifies himself ipso facto from the service. The extent to which clemency may properly be exercised is a matter for the authorities. But I think it is a right and proper position that the man who knowingly and wilfully, and with his eyes open, offends against the provisions of the Bill should realise that he disqualifies himself.

Mr. CONNOLLY: The Clause says, "the said regulations." Three sets of regulations are mentioned in the Clause. In the first part you have "the regulations"; then you have "the inclusive regulations," and further on you find "the regulations made in compliance with the provisions" etc. Does the phrase "said regulations" cover the whole of the regulations or only those made to comply with the Bill?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The penalties referred to in Clause 5 refer only to the regulations which are made in pursuance of Clause 5. We cannot accept the position of any intermediary coming between the State and its employés in matters of this kind. I have no doubt that such power of clemency and reinstatement as may rest with the authorities will be exercised in considering the facts in particular cases. I have dealt with these Amendments, and I have also explained the Amendment which the Government have in contemplation, because Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, seemed to consider that this general discussion on the Clause was the most convenient way to deal with these matters, and that also appeared to me to be the wish of hon. Members who are
taking part in the Debate. I shall not attempt to deal with the general issue. The Report stage is far more appropriately occupied by dealing with points which have been overlooked in Committee, or which have arisen out of discussions in Committee than by being taken up with repetitions of the speeches which have been delivered at earlier stages of the Bill. I made a speech on the Committee stage when I presented the general case which is behind this Clause as fully as I could, and I do not really feel that I should be expediting business, or serving any useful purpose, if I were to repeat all I said on that occasion, or as much of it as I could remember. There is always a danger that one would not reproduce it so exactly that some discrepancy between the two versions would not arise. I am the less called upon to take this step because the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) who made a very rasping speech, a speech which certainly showed how very far as a political representative of the Civil Service his flagrant partisanship allowed him to go——

Mr. W. BAKER: I make the specific statement that I am not here representing the Civil Service; I am here representing East Bristol.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am all for that policy, but I consider that the hon. Gentleman is, to a very large extent, a representative of the Civil Service, and——

Mr. BAKER: I am very sorry to interrupt again, but according to all the traditions of gentlemanly conduct in this House I have always understood that an emphatic statement made by an hon. Member was accepted. I say most specifically that in no sense do. I represent the Civil Service in the House of Commons. I am here as the representative of East Bristol, and I represent no one else.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member told us exactly what his position was, that 90,000 members of the Civil Service had, as he said, generously contributed to secure him his means of entering the House——

Mr. BAKER: I do not know what the standard of conduct of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer may be, but I must ask him to accept my statement as an ordinary hon. Member.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no question of any difference of view between us as to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but——

Mr. BAKER: Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really must ask to be allowed to continue.

Mr. BAKER: Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in possession of the House. If the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Baker) thinks that anything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said unfairly represents him, I am sure the House will allow him to speak again in order to put it right.

Mr. BAKER: The words I object to most strongly are the words "flagrant partisanship,' and we shall see when we get the OFFICIAL REPORT, if it is not corrected, but I say quite definitely that any hon. Member in this House, with the exception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have withdrawn his remarks, having regard to my repudiation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I consider myself perfectly entitled to form my own opinion of the character of the relations of the hon. Member with the 90,000 civil servants he told us about, and in forming my own opinion, and in expressing my own opinion, which I have an absolute right to do, I do not consider in the least that I throw any aspersion upon his own personal integrity or any statement which he may have made. He has stated certain facts, and I am entitled to draw my own conclusions from them, and, if I may say so——

Mr. BAKER rose——

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given way——

Mr. BAKER: Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in possession of the House. Therefore, if he does not give way, the hon. Member is not entitled to rise in order to make any comments or interruptions,
but at the same time, at the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, if the hon. Member for East Bristol thinks that some personal explanation is necessary, I am sure the House will be willing to hear him, and I would take notice of him if he rose.

Mr. BAKER: On a point of Order. I want to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refer to my flagrant partisanship in relation to the representation of the Civil Service, having regard to my express statement, made in this Debate to-night, that I do not represent the Civil Service in this House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not a question of order. The hon. Member may complain of the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, if he wishes to make his personal position clear, I am sure that, notwithstanding the rule against speaking twice, the House will be willing to hear him again at the conclusion of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. BAKER rose.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already given way to the hon. Member, I think, live times in rapid succession, and I am endeavouring to address myself to the remarks which he made with some asperity in those interruptions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense! "] I am quite entitled to do so, and I shall certainly not be prevented from saying what I think it right to say by any remarks made by any hon. Members in any quarter of the House; and, since the matter is to be pressed—and I do not think we should ever shrink from pressing any point when it is brought up—I should like to point out that, if the hon. Gentleman objects to the expression "flagrant partisanship" which I used, let me tell him that I used that expression because he applied to Members on this side the extremely offensive and impudent expression "caddishness." I do not object in the least to strong and rude language being used in these Debates—I have never taken a mealy-mouthed view of these matters—but I do say that the man who uses the word "cad," and flings it out as a taunt, in cold blood, to his political opponents, ought not to come and whine and complain because somebody says that
he is guilty of flagrant partisanship. Lots of us are guilty of flagrant partisanship on this question or on that, and to run around crying out for order and help and succour because an innocent retort of that kind is made to a highly offensive expression is, I am bound to say, not up to the general level of spirited conduct which we expect from the hon. Gentleman. I will conclude my remarks by saying that the last argument in favour of my repeating my speech on the Committee stage has been removed by the fact that the hon. Member read practically the whole of it to the House this afternoon.

Mr. AMMON: The House will, I am sure, agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on the Report stage of a Bill we are more concerned with new points than with discussing the general provisions, but I think it would be quite fair that some reference should be made to the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Committee stage and to the remarks that he has just made. First of all, however, I want to comment on one or two points that have arisen earlier. Although one feels that it is quite hopeless to try to move the Government with regard to this Clause, there are some points that should be placed on record, even if the Bill is going to prejudge them without any intention whatever to consider the merits of the case, so far as the Government side of the House are concerned. In supporting the rejection of this Clause, I am strengthened by the fact that in the opening stages of the Bill I think it was the Attorney-General, or perhaps the Solicitor-General, who indicated that they need not have included this Clause in the Bill to achieve what they desired because it could be done through the ordinary regulations of the Civil Service. Everyone who knows anything about the Civil Service knows that that is a perfectly accurate statement of fact. The position of the Civil Service at present in regard to its alliance with any outside movement and the activities in which it takes part in politics or in questions concerning economic movements is solely regulated by departmental regulations, varying from department. Some departments allow a bigger latitude—on the ground, perhaps, of the employment of the employés in those departments
in respect to outside activities such as county councils, borough councils, and so forth—than are allowed by other departments, and I think I am within the measure of fact when I say that the larger latitude obtains in the Post Office having regard to the large amount of routine of the men employed on that sort of work.
If the Attorney-General agrees that this could have been done, by regulation, it seems to me to make it quite clear that the sole intention of the Government in including this Clause in the Bill must have been to aim a blow at their political opponents, that the Clause was not inserted through any fear of any dishonest action or partisanship on the part of civil servants, but because the Government see within this Clause a means whereby they hope to hit and help to cripple in some measure this political party that has been built up largely by the self-sacrifice and small contributions of the hundreds of thousands of working men and women in this country. By this action they are hoping to withdraw from the industrial movement outside and from the political Labour movement a certain measure of support both as regards cash contributions and perhaps, for what it may be worth, the personnel of certain men who may be able to give service to the movement. If that he so, I want to point out again, even at the risk of reiteration, that this difficulty is emphasised still more when we come to examine the composition of the Civil Service and consider the persons who will suffer a certain amount of disfranchisement under this Clause. It is utterly absurd to talk about the majority of civil servants, the tens of thousands of postmen, cleaners and porters and other persons engaged in routine and industrial work, having any influence on the Civil Service, its deliberations or its impartiality. These people mix with the mass of the industrial workers and in ordinary circumstances cannot be differentiated from them.
So sure as night follows day this country, no matter what Government may be in power, will be compelled to bring more services and a larger amount of industry under the direct control, or even of the ownership, of the State. Does it follow that all those people will
be automatically deprived of the power of association with their colleagues in the industrial world outside in an endeavour to improve their standard of life and for political purposes? Whether it be deferred for a long time or come soon, it is inevitable that the mines and railways at least will come under that direction at some time; and if this law remains these people will come under the ban of this Clause. Do the Government imagine that that state of affairs will be accepted quietly? Do they imagine that they would be able to enforce the application of this Regulation? They would be, by this Measure, introducing into the Service dissention, points of view and discussions which hitherto have been absent from it. The very passing of this Bill, with this Clause, is going to bring into the Service those conditions which the Government say it is intended to keep outside. From that point of view alone it is worth while, even at this late hour, for the Government to reconsider their position; and at least the Attorney-General might be frank enough to admit, as is admitted by his followers on the other side of the House, that we should never have heard of this Clause if it had been not for the fact that a large section of the Civil Service supports one political party. That is the gravamen of the offence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not pursue the suggestion that it arises from any action, either direct or indirect, in connection with the recent general strike. That has been abandoned wholly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government speakers. They have admitted that the Clause need not have been introduced and that the Regulations of the Service could have dealt, with it if necessary. They have been actuated solely by grounds of partisanship, not to use the term "flagrant partisanship" to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently given expression.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask what is going to happen to those Services which are in a semi-Government position, for instance, the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is now under the direct control of the Government. If we want to bring up any question relating to that organisation, we have to put down the salary of the Postmaster-
General in order to have a discussion upon the subject. Is it suggested that this ban is going to extend to Services like that, that persons who are on the staff of that Corporation will fall within the ambit of this Bill? It must follow, if there is to be a logical application of the Bill. I hope the Attorney-General will not try again to suggest that employment in the Civil Service is a coveted position, and to say it is proved by the number of applicants. The constituency I represent has within its borders large numbers of men who are employed in the docks. One can go there and see crowds of men lining up or going to the office for a ticket in the hope of being able to obtain work, a far larger number than can find employment. But is it suggested that that is a coveted position, and that this is proved by the large number of applicants there are for it? Within the last two or three days I have had no fewer than eight letters from men asking me if I can secure a "tally" for them in order that they may get work in the docks, where they were employed at some time before they joined up with the Forces. One of the rewards for joining up with the Forces is that when they come hack they find they cannot get employment. They are surplus to the demand for employment. Would it he equally fair to say that what they are seeking is to be regarded as a coveted position? One knows very well that their eagerness for such a job is created by the economic situation, that it does not follow that it is a position they covet above all others, hut, simply, that they must have the means of existence.
As a matter of historical curiosity it is of interest to note that it was on the 30th May this year that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech on this Clause during the Committee stage of this Bill. I had the curiosity to turn up the speeches of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when the earlier Trade Disputes Bill was before the House, and I found that it was on the 30th May, 1911, that he made a speech, probably one of the most powerful speeches made in this House—he was then a Liberal, by the. Way—in favour of the Trade Disputes Bill of that day, the Bill which we are now proposing to repeal under this Measure. While some complaint has
been made from the other side of the House about the force of the language used by some of my hon. Friends on this side in fighting this Bill, I am bound to say that when I read the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of that earlier Bill, I was green with envy at the force, the power, and the vigour of his language, language which drew protests and brought about the interference of Mr. Speaker owing to his attack on the Judges of the High Court, and so forth. We might learn something of the power of invective, and even of unparliamentary expressions, if we were to read up some of those speeches.
Sixteen years ago to the very day the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the champion of the Trade Disputes Bill. He said then that it was quite true that men were called upon to contribute to a fund to support members in whose polities they might not believe, but he said that, after all, it was very small in the aggregate, it did not matter very much, and they themselves did not trouble very much about it, because they exercised their own right at the ballot box to cast their franchise as they wished. He was then supporting strongly the very position which we are now supporting. I do not believe he will deny it. He has just said that he is not mealy mouthed in his language, or over-sensitive to criticism of the position which he takes up. He is a pure soldier of fortune. Such trifles as principles do not trouble the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All he is concerned about is that he may he in office and in power. He said quite early in the life of this Parliament, in reply to some question, that it was a very unusual thing not to find him in the Government—no matter what the complexion of the Government may be, although he has come to a halt now. He can only be in one Government now, because the alternative Government would not find room for him under any circumstances, whatever might happen.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was natural that the hon. Member should make these observations about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think he should now come back to the question of the Civil Service and outside bodies.

Mr. AMMON: You have just anticipated me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by a second. At any rate, that was the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, and now he has reversed his attitude and has been put up as the chief defender of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman made certain charges about special interests being concerned in regard to this Measure. I am not going to defend those special interests, but an argument like that comes ill from a party concerned mainly with guarding special interests and a party in which all the big capitalists are crowded on the benches opposite who are there to see that their interests are well looked after and safeguarded. The hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) said that so far as he knew there was no question of any feeling about segregation on the part of civil servants by the passing of this Clause. I do not know what is the hon. Member's association or knowledge of civil servants, but I speak on this subject with some knowledge, and I know there is a considerable feeling among them on this question. They object to being cut off or singled out from the rest of the workers in regard to this particular matter.
Let us see how we arrive at this position. The right of civil servants to be associated with outside organisations both for trade union and political activities was granted by this House, because of the feeling that Civil Servants had against being segregated from the rest of the community, and there was a long agitation which occupied much of the time of this House until at last the Government, of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member, granted the rights which it is now proposed to take away, and they granted them because they thought no harm could be done to the Service and because there was a steady and persistent demand for them. After this Bill is passed, all that feeling of unrest will be aroused once more, and the House of Commons will again be troubled with many questions which since the establishment of the present position of civil servants have not been brought forward.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the want of courtesy of the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker). I notice that the right hon.
Gentleman has left the House. May I point out that it is the established custom of this House that when a Member has made his speech he should remain in the House during the speech of the Member who immediately follows him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has in this instance departed from that well-established custom by not remaining in the House to listen to anything in the way of a reply to the remarks which he has just made. I think hon. Members in every part of the House will be ready to support me in that particular connection, and I would not have made these remarks had the right hon. Gentleman not been so persistent in his discourtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol.
I want to reply to a point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) upon the question of the unestablished workmen and their position. Other hon. Friends of mine will deal with this matter more fully. The point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed altogether is that these people are ordinary tradesmen and workmen following their ordinary occupations as joiners and blacksmiths, and they are placed in an invidious position if owing to slackness in their trade they have not a trade union card which would join them up to other trade unions. For that reason alone, I think the Government ought to extend full liberty to those in an unestablished capacity, no matter what they do in the case of the established civil servants, because by this Clause you are jeopardising their very means of subsistence. After all, we have to see that those Regulations which are going to be made under the provisions of this Clause will not be included in Regulations already operating for the guidance and direction of civil servants of all grades and all capacities. Under those Regulations, even if they have nothing to do with Clause 5, it seems to me it will be impossible for them to become members of the Civil Service. I hope that is not so. If such a question should come into the Law Courts, the Judges will give their judgment on the precise wording of the Clause itself, and not upon any opinion expressed in this House by hon. Members, however learned they may be.
I do not think, however, that I can do anything to improve the Bill while this Clause remains in it. But the Govemment would at least have done something to safeguard that position if they had given some court of appeal to the members who may be brought within the particular ambit of those Regulations. I have been long enough connected with the Civil Service to remember the time when political opponents during an election used to write to the Post Office, to other Departments, complaining of the activities of men employed in the Civil Service. This Clause is going to open the door to all that sort of thing in the fixture, and people are again going to be made the victims of anonymous letters, and all those means of pressure which can be brought by political opponents simply because they happen to be in the Civil Service. In that way, you are going to bring about a state of things in the Civil Service that will not make for the well-being of the Service, and will not promote that high standard of conduct of which we are all so proud to-day. All this is being done to aim a blow at the Labour party, because by mere force of circumstances a large number of organised civil servants have found that their natural gravitation is towards that party in the State which represents to the fullest extent the larger mass of the workers of this country.

Captain BOURNE: I shall not detain the House for more than a moment or two. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, hon. Friends of mine and myself raised the question of established civil servants during the discussion on the Committee stage, and I merely rise to express, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, our thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General for the concession they have made.

Mr. TOWNEND: One point that has emerged from the remarks of the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) calls for some comment. It has been pointed out from these benches that the application of Clause 5 would place tens of thousands of civil servants in a position of disadvantage as compared with other members of the community, and that very largely is the ground of the opposition which has been raised to
it from these benches; and when we gather, from the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth, that, even when civil servants retire from the service on pensions which they have rightly earned, they are still to be denied the right to move and have their being on level terms with other sections of the community, we think that that is carrying the process of shackling too far, and really descends to a form of cruelty on the part of the Government which all right-minded people are bound to condemn.
While it is true that the pension they are drawing is an ex gratia pension, it has been recognised over and over again in argument, not only in Government but in other circles where it has been useful to employ that argument, that this ex gratia pension is neither more nor less than deferred payment of salary. Therefore, having performed their duties as civil servants, these people are, surely, entitled to exercise full and free citizen rights with their fellows, irrespective of where they happened to be employed before they retired on pension; and I do think that this is a matter which the Attorney-General might submit again to those who are responsible for this Bill, so that justice may be meted out to men who have placed their experience at the disposal of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while claiming that he had dealt with this Clause on the Second Reading, from his point of view satisfactorily, used that, as I thought, rather unfairly in refusing to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), and perhaps the Attorney-General will treat the Members on these benches, and their suggestions by way of criticism of this Clause, with, shall I say, a greater degree of regard, and he will, perhaps, endeavour to reply to some of the points that have been raised.
It has been suggested that, among the reasons why members of the Civil Service should be prepared to forgo certain of their rights as citizens, is that they possess security of tenure, continuity of service, and that, unlike others, even salaried people, under private enterprise, they are guaranteed pensions when they reach a crtain age. There is a certain analogy between civil servants and others,
which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), and which to me is very sinister, having regard to the possible developments under Clause 5, and bearing in mind the chameleon-like qualities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One need not carry one's mind back to 1911 to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer voicing certain principles. It may be within the recollection of certain Members of this House that, when he was wooing Dundee in 1918, he advocated nationalisation of the railways. [An HON. MEMBER: "He promised it."] He promised it definitely. One never knows, with the turn of the wheel of time, what position the Chancellor of the Exchequer may occupy in days to come. He may occupy a position in which he will wield even greater power than he wields at the present time, sufficient, perhaps, to give effect to the principles which he then advocated, but which for the moment he has dropped. Perhaps he may return to a degree of consistency that has been missing, at any rate, from his words in this House quite recently, and may again advocate the principle of railway nationalisation. When that takes place, we shall find exactly the same position obtaining on the railways, with the railways nationalised, as obtains in the Civil Service to-day.
Drawing the argument from that corollary, I want to submit to the House that there are very strong arguments, even to-day, and facts which ought to be submitted to the Government, which should justify their reconsidering one of the objections which they raise to civil servants exercising the freedom which they exercise to-day. Their connection with a particular party seems to be regarded as a strong argument for denying them full citizenship. It is suggested that relationship with, say, the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress has resulted in the politicalisation of industry, something to which the Government object as far as it concerns the Civil Service. Take the comparison that I have already drawn, between those in the Civil Service and those in the railway service who are enjoying security of tenure and pension rights, and who at the same time are in a salaried position as administrators or supervisors, occupying to a very large degree an exactly
similar position in the railway service to that which obtains in the Civil Service.
Is it not true that those in the railway service who could be put in exactly the same category as civil servants owe most of the benefits they enjoy to what has taken place on the Floor of this very Chamber? The politicalisation of that industry has resulted in laying down a wonderful set of machinery that determines their conditions of service, that practically determines their hours, and, at the same time, has enabled them to obtain even better salary rates than apply to a very large number of those who are in the Civil Service. Is it not, in addition, a fact that time after time those salaried individuals in the railway service, on questions of pension, and on other questions also, have had to come to this House to ask the House to see that they obtained equity and justice? Nevertheless, we are told that that protection, regard and support which the Government to-day rightly gives to this salaried supervisory and administrative class of citizens, and which has brought all these benefits in its train, is to be denied to civil servants. Surely, if ever there were an argument for the politicalisation of an industry, if ever there were an argument for a retention of relationship with the Labour party or the Trades Union Congress, what we now know in respect of the administrative side of the railways ought to warrant the Attorney-General in again reviewing, as I hope he will, Clause 5 of this Bill.
As has already been pointed out, only a very small percentage of these civil servants have any influence whatsoever upon the policy of the Government. The other 95 per cent. stand in exactly the same category as millions of other workers throughout the length and breadth of the land, and their economic circumstances ought to be protected in exactly the same way. The civil servants to-day, if they require their conditions of service, their hours and all pertaining thereto to be considered as between the Government and the staff, have to depend upon a mere statement of the case. There is nothing else behind it, and we all know from our experience of organised labour, its relations and its interdependence by and through the political
machine and the industrial machine, that it is only according to the strength that is behind the arguments that results emerge. The fact that there is nothing to rely on except merely their spoken word is something that is going to place them at a tremendous disadvantage, and in the line they have taken the Government are depriving these people of that which they are prepared to guarantee to every other section of the community. Surely, therefore, we are entitled to make the charge against the Government, in insisting upon this Clause, that they are reducing the whole of the Civil Service to a state of servitude that does not reflect credit upon those who impose it

Mr. GERALD HURST: I rise to make only two points. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said this Clause had its origins in the partisanship of the Government and their supporters and had no relation whatever to the action of any association of civil servants during the general strike. In my submission, the great justification of this Clause lies in the very point the hon. Gentleman said had no relation with the Clause at all, namely, the conduct of the Civil Service associations during the general strike, because there could be no better justification than the action of the leading Civil Service associations which had outside affiliations for the line the Government have pursued in introducing this Clause. The hon. Gentleman who made that speech, and who leads the opposition to the Clause, will remember perfectly well what the conduct of his own union, the Union of Post Office Workers, was during the time of the general strike. I receive from time to time from loyalist members of the Post Office literature issued by the Union of Post Office Workers, and I have here a document issued by that union on 1,st May, 1926, by the general secretary, who, on behalf of the executive council of the association, which is an association consisting entirely of State servants, says:
A state of emergency has now been proclaimed in connection with the crisis precipitated by the Government. The General Council of the Trade Union Congress are acting on behalf of the whole of the trade union movement, and pledges of loyalty to the decision and the requests of the General Council have been given by the great majority of the unions, including not only those representing vital industries but black-coated
organisations, including those of the Civil Service. Your own Executive Council have taken a full part in all the proceedings which culminated in the acceptance of the Government's challenge to the trade unions. … In common with other organisations, a pledge of loyalty has been given by the Executive Council on behalf of the Union of Post Office Workers.
To whom was that pledge of loyalty given? Not to the State, but to the Trade Union Congress. There could be no clearer illustration of the embarrassing effect of what has been described as a dual allegiance.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that that pledge was not to do work other than their own and not to do the work of other strikers, and he knows that the Government themselves thanked the Post Office for the work they did during the general strike.

Mr. HURST: Of course, the Government recognised their obligation to the great mass of the Post Office servants, who are as loyal citizens as we could desire. The persons the Government did not thank were the officials of this union, whose letter speaks for itself and needs no gloss or interpretation from anyone. I have read the exact words that were used. The union executive state that a pledge of loyalty has been given to the Trade Union Congress and the point I am making is this. How can you reconcile the duty of a civil servant to give his undivided allegiance to the State which employs him with giving at the same time a pledge of loyalty to the Trade Union Congress, an outside body, engaged upon what is generally recognised to have been an illegal and revolutionary movement against the interests of the State? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be under two allegiances, and that is the real reason why this Clause appeals not only to the general public and not only contributes to the general interest but also appeals to the main body of loyal civil servants.
There is another association—the Civil Service Clerical Association. I have a letter of the same date marked "Urgent and Important," from Mr. W. J. Brown, the General Secretary, in which the members are told on no account must they
volunteer for any sort of outside work. "Above all," it says,
No members should sign a form of undertaking for service with voluntary organisations which, so to speak, would be a blank cheque. Where branch officers are in doubt as to the advice which they should give, they should report immediately to headquarters advising the members to abstain from decision until headquarters advice is received.
That means that when the members of the Clerical Association are under a duty to the State, they are told, "Do not give the State a blank cheque. Be very careful how you obey the directions given you. Do not act until you obtain advice from headquarters. "Whose headquarters? The headquarters of an association affiliated with the Trade Union Congress. It is another clear illustration of the disadvantages of allegiance on the one side to the community and on the other to a revolutionary outside body like the Trade Union Congress. I have here a very interesting document, the balance sheet of the Union of Post Office Workers, made up to 31st December, 1926, given me by a loyalist in the Post Office. It shows how much money, subscribed very often by perfectly loyal members of the Post Office, was wasted by being devoted to a seditious and revolutionary purpose during the course of that year. Among the disbursements in this balance sheet, which is an official one, audited by chartered accountants, there figures an item of special expenses arising from the general strike, "to Trade Union Congress funds, £5,000." That means to say that £5,000 contributed by these men was handed over to the Trade Union Congress for the purpose of the general strike. The total contributed for the purpose of the general strike, according to their own balance sheet, was £5,867 8s. 7d. In addition to that, they contributed to what they call the Political Fund, £17,275 8s. 7d., the whole of it going into the pockets of the Socialist party and persons associated with it, notwithstanding the fact that in this union, which consists of something like 80,000 or 90,000 civil servants, a very large number indeed are not Socialists and do not believe in Socialism at all. That shows what is the result of allowing unions of civil servants to have their devotion and their loyalty to the State undermined and sapped by subjecting
them at the same time to an allegiance to another outside body, which is quite incompatible, in my submission, with their undivided loyalty and allegiance to the State.

Mr. AMMON: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the money he has mentioned in the balance sheet which was contributed to the political fund was collected for other purposes? Is he not aware that under the present system it is lodged with the Registrar-General and that it was subscribed for that purpose?

Mr. HURST: That makes it all the more horrible that the law at the present time should tolerate it—I quite admit the legality—and shows how necessary it is that action should be taken.

Mr. AMMON: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to suggest that something wrong was being done.

Mr. HURST: I never suggested it was legally wrong. My whole point was, that it was morally wrong. It is what public opinion and morality regard as, wrong. That is why I suggest to the House that we ought to welcome this Clause which brings the law of the land into relationship with one's ordinary conception of right and wrong. I cannot see how anyone who really takes a serious view of the loyalty which civil servants owe to the State which employs them, can reconcile that position with tolerating the continuance of the law which permits payments of this sort and which tolerates a dual allegiance of this sort. The only other point with which I wish to deal relates to the expression used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), when he said, I think quite properly, he did not speak for the Civil Service. He does not speak for the Civil Service because there are in the Civil Service, besides the handful interested in political movements, thousands and tens of thousands of absolutely loyal servants of the State. They do not want to see the politicalisation—if I may use the expression used by the last hon. Member—of the Civil Service. They want to see the Civil Service unfettered by outside matters of that sort, so that they can devote the whole of their labours and duties to the service of the State. The civil servants I have come across in my own constituency are loyalists, and they
have no wish whatever to drag the Civil Service into the political arena.
The growing infusion of politics into the life of the Civil Service is an unhealthy sign of the times. It is the tradition of this country, and a very high tradition, that the administration of our public affairs, and especially the personnel of the Civil Service, should be entirely dissociated from any consideration as to the party to which a man belongs, to what opinion he is attached and what creed he professes. The State should choose its servants regardless of their political beliefs. It is because this Clause makes it impossible for civil servants to have their loyalty adulterated and poisoned by outside associations that I think it will commend itself, not only to the great mass of public opinion in this country, but also to the great body of civil servants themselves.

Mr. CONNOLLY: The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) to which we have just listened is an illustration of how far the Tories will go in their ardent admiration of nationalisation when they see it in operation. The hon. and learned Member has said that, in his opinion, the majority of the Post Office employés are not Socialists. I do not know whether he is right or not, but, at any rate, the employment in which they find themselves is a Socialist service. It is Socialism in operation. The hon. and learned Member wants to claim—and this Bill does claim—a privilege for that Socialist service that it does not require. He wants a loyalty given to a nationalised service of which it does not stand in need, and to which it has no more right than any private employer. The Socialist system of which he has been speaking shows a profit of millions of pounds every year, and it does not want any privileged basis on which to stand, as is sought to be given in this Clause.
My main purpose in rising is to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question concerning the reply he gave to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha). Out of that answer arises a most interesting situation, a most curious position. Clause 2 of the Bill prevents victimisation and gives to the man who wants work the opportunity of working, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to the hon. Member for Devonport
is going to debar hundreds, and, perhaps, thousands of men, from getting work. In his reply he said he had made several concessions under this particular Clause. He used the word "insatiable," and said he was going to make no more concessions to him. This was in reply to the hon. Member's request that the Government should adopt the Amendment that was on the Order Paper to give exemption to dockyard employés who are paid off and who are re-employed by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "No, we are not going to concede that."
Let us see how that works out in practice. I am a dockyard established man, and I am paid off like 600 of the hon. Member's constituents who are established men, and who have been paid off quite recently, and on whose behalf he has spoken several times in this House. I am a member of my trade union and I am entitled to superannuation and other benefits. I am paid off. In the course of time I am allowed to start again. The hon. Member for Devonport says he wants me exempted from being compelled to leave my trade union. I am, under the provisions of the Bill, up to now exempted, and he wants me further exempted when I am re-employed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says "No, you are insatiable. You are not going to get any more concessions." I am re-employed, and I am asked to leave my union. The Act covers me, someone will say, but I say that the Act does not cover me, and I refuse to leave my union. On what grounds? Under this particular Clause I claim that I am exempt in spite of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. I have been an established civil servant, but I have been discharged. Clause 5 says that I must be an established servant in the permanent service of the Crown. How can I be in the permanent service of the Crown if I am liable to be discharged every now and then? I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General to define this position, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said most emphatically that in these circumstances I must leave my union. I hope that whoever is going to reply will devote a minute or two to explaining what the position of a man will be in these circumstances.
I want to touch upon another part of this Clause that was dealt with by a Member below the Gangway on the Government side and which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). It is in regard to the word "knowingly" in Sub-section (2). In British law, ignorance in a Court of law is not accepted as an excuse. This Bill will become an Act of Parliament, and this Sub-section says that before a civil servant can be liable he must knowingly contravene the Regulations. As I understand the meaning of the word "contravene," I do not know how a civil servant is going to contravene the Act if he does not know. I cannot comprehend that. He may contravene the Regulations from wrong motives, or through misinformation, but how he can do it without knowing, I am at a loss to understand. With regard to the Regulations themselves, I would emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for North Camberwell and by one of the Government supporters, that the Minister should define more clearly the meaning of the words "the said Regulations." In the first paragraph of the Clause the Regulations are mentioned three times, and it is a reasonable interpretation to put upon the words "the said Regulations," that they include all the Regulations. A breach of the most trivial Regulation may involve a man in dismissal from the Civil Service. I do not think that is quite the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to know who will determine whether a man has contravened the Regulations and whether he has knowingly or unknowingly done it. Presumably, it is to be left to some official in a higher position than himself to determine that. It ought to be clearly defined or explained by the Minister in charge.
By this Clause, the Government apparently think that they will take support from the political party which sits on these benches. I am of the opposite opinion. I listened to representatives of the Civil Service, representing three very large societies, and I gathered from their remarks that experience has shown that as far as political opinions were concerned the preponderance in the Civil Service was in favour of the present Government, and that there certainly was not a majority of Labour men in the Civil
Service Associations. It was very well pointed out by the three speakers who addressed us in the Committee room upstairs that this Bill, and particularly this Clause, will force the civil servants into alliance with the movement which is pledged to give them back the freedom which they now enjoy.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) did scant justice to the people of this country when he said that, apparently, the only way that the civil servant could get justice would be by showing that he had strength behind him in his negotiations. By that, I presume the hon. Member meant the strength which he thought would come from the Trade Union Council.

Mr. KELLY: Organisations.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: As far as one can judge the strength which the Trade Union Council gives to anything, it is a type of strength which fails just at the moment when it may be most needed. The hon. Member did scant justice to the people of this country, because if there is one thing which characterises the British people more than another it is their sense of fair play and their sense of justice. There is nothing either in this Bill or in practice which prevents a real grievance in the Civil Service from being brought prominently before the people of this country. Once that grievance has been brought forward before the people of this country, the Civil Service will get something very much better than the broken reed of the Trade Union Council; they will get the force of public opinion, which will be reflected through this House. Therefore, the hon. Member for Stockport in his criticism of this part of the Bill did scant justice to the people of this country.
I have been at some pains to try to find out how far there is any opposition to this Clause in the Civil Service itself. I am told that in my constituency there are 1,600 civil servants. I believe the number is very much more. I am told, on the authority of one or two people who came to see me in one of the rooms of this Rouse and who said they represented the Civil Service Defence Committee, that I have at least 1,600 members,
of the Civil Service in my division. Every time that a member of this so-called Civil Service Defence Committee has come to see me, I have tried to find out by what authority he calls himself a member of the Civil Service Defence Committee, who he represents and how he was delegated to that representation. I have never yet been able to find out exactly how he was constituted a representative or how any of them was constituted a representative; neither have I been able to discover from any one of these so-called representatives, who they represent or had authority to represent. When men come to me in that way, I put to them the position which I put to most constituents if they come to see me about matters of importance. I asked them whether it was possible, being anxious to hear the views of my constituents, to arrange a meeting of those they said they represented, so that I might meet them not secondhand but face to face, in order to hear from them the way in which this Clause might affect them adversely.
I was told that they would get such a meeting together. They went away and I heard nothing from them. I inquired when the meeting was to be arranged. It was then suggested that I should meet one of their representatives, not at a meeting of those they said they represented but in a public debate in some hall in my constituency, with no guarantee on their part that there would be a single member of the Civil Service present, and no guarantee even that the man who was to debate with me would be a member of the Civil Service. I declined that offer, for the simple reason that there was no suggestion that it was going to be a meeting of civil servants. It was going to be an ordinary public debate to advertise a few people who, as far as can make out, represent nobody but themselves. Having failed in that way, they wrote to me and suggested that I should attend a public meeting. I pointed out to them that I had held a considerable number of public meetings in my constituency and that at every one of my meetings I had explained my views upon this Clause and why I supported it, and that I found as far as civil servants in the audience were concerned that there war no opposition on the part of those civil servants to the attitude which I was taking up.
From that day to this, and it was some considerable time ago, I have been trying to get this so-called Civil Service Defence Committee to have a meeting in my Division to which they would give me an opportunity of going and meeting face to face those persons they claimed to represent; but they have not been able to arrange a meeting. I was, at last, able to arrange with a branch of the Union of Postal Workers, who said that they had some members in my Division although their headquarters were outside the Division, to hold a meeting, which took place last Sunday morning. I went to that meeting. They told me that they had invited every member of the Union of Postal Workers in my Division and a number of other civil servants from my Division to be present at the meeting. The room in which it was held was moderately full. There were something like 60 or 70 people present, but, although there is a good branch of the Union of Postal Workers actually in my constituency and although this branch said they had plenty of members in my constituency; there were less than 20 members of the union present at that meeting. In these circumstances, having tried every possible way of getting information as to the number of civil servants who oppose this Clause in my constituency out of the 1,600 they profess that I have got, I can only come to the conclusion that the number is very small indeed—something less than 20 or 30, for even of the 20 who were present at the meeting on Sunday certainly not all of them were in opposition to this Clause as it stands. That being so, where is the real opposition to this Clause? It is entirely an engineered opposition like the rest of the opposition to this Bill. It is an opposition which finds its place in this House in a repetition of misrepresentations of the Bill, and which, when you try to test it outside, is found to have no backing at all in any part of the country.
The hon. Member who spoke last said a word or two about a meeting which was held upstairs in one of the Committee Rooms. He neglected to tell the House that the principal opposition of the three gentlemen who spoke there was based upon a statement with regard to this Bill which was entirely untrue and
unfounded. He forgot to point out that the statement which was made by those gentlemen upstairs, and upon which they founded their criticism, was that if this Bill passed in its present form it would deprive the civil servants of any chance whatever of exercising political liberty or political judgment.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Hear, hear!

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The hon. Gentleman is apparently still in the position that those gentlemen were. Either he has not read the Bill or, having read it, is content to continue misrepresenting it, because all that this Bill does is to prevent a man joining a union which is dealing with the conditions of his employment in the Civil Service, if that union is going to attach itself to people whose main object would to destroy the Civil Service and make it an unfit employment for those people. In these circumstances, and knowing perfectly well that this merely limits political activities between associations which should exist, not for political purposes, but for totally different purposes, one knows quite well that the statement made upstairs, and which has been repeated so often by Members of the Opposition in the country, namely, that this Bill deprives the civil servants of the right to express political opinions, is not only untrue and unfounded, but untrue to the knowledge of those who say so in the country.

Mr. CONNOLLY: With regard to the meeting upstairs, all I want to say is that what the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has stated is not a proved fact. It is only a difference of opinion between the hon. and learned Member and the people upstairs. He is begging the quustion.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The hon. Gentleman who was present at that meeting will probably remember that, after these gentlemen had spoken, I pointed out to them that this Clause only applied to limit and to prohibit political activity in an association the main purpose of which was to influence and affect the remuneration and conditions of employment of its members.

Mr. CONNOLLY: What was the reply?

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The reply was "Ah, we had considered that that
might possibly be a loophole," but they very carefully omitted to say anything at all about it. That is exactly what they have been doing, not only upstairs, but in every speech that they have made in the country or anywhere else. The real position with regard to this Bill, as far as I have been able to ascertain from the very large number of civil servants in my constituency—and there are a very large number—is that they recognise that when this Bill is passed no one will any longer have the right to send to the civil servants the type of circular which was sent to them by Mr. Bowen and Mr. Brown in May of last year. They resented the insulting tone of those letters and circulars. They resented the presumption which was made in those letters that they would be disloyal, and they support this Clause because they realise that it will protect them from insolence of that kind and because they believe that loyalty to the State is much more important than even the luxury of being represented by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker).

Mr. KELLY: I listened with very great interest to the last speaker, inasmuch as I was one of those responsible for calling that meeting upstairs, and I wish the hon. and learned Member had not rested content with just mentioning his own question, but had given the replies which were made to him when he attempted to describe this Bill. I think probably he was like a good many other members of his own Party who expressed the opinion to me on the following day that they had made a mistake in going to that Meeting and hearing from civil servants exactly what were the views of the Civil Service with regard to this Measure. We have heard from the hon. and learned Member that this is a Bill which is only intended to prevent civil servants from engaging in the political sphere. I think there is another intent on the part of the Government—the intent that they will have a much weaker organisation to deal with just as they had in the years that have gone.
The hon. and learned Member says that civil servants can depend on the British public for seeing that they are adequately paid and well conditioned. If that be so,
the British public neglected that when they had no organisation, for it was not until they had a trade union organisation that the civil servants were able to make some impression on the Treasury and the Departments who were concerned. That is well known. The Attorney-General can get that advice without much difficulty within a few seconds. The civil servants were not treated well, and they are not treated well to-day We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the civil servant's position is a coveted position and one that men are scrambling for. Scrambling for a job at £3 a week in order to be in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered a coveted position! Is that the height to which our people have got at this time, that they look upon £3 a week with permanent employment as a coveted position? We have been told in this Debate that they have continuous employment and that the chance of being able to work for 48 or 49 weeks in the year is something which you should be thankful for and something that is an advantage to you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought so, I expected hon. Members to cheer that, as though the service that is rendered by those people in 49 weeks in the year is not something that we ought to be proud of, as being to the advantage of ourselves. It is for your advantage that they have to work all the year round, and they need not express any thanks to this or any other Government for the opportunity. Why is the Attorney-General making this Bill so unequal and so unjust? Lawyers and doctors are not being placed in the same position as other civil servants. They are people, I suppose, of whom it can be stated that they have a primary object other than influencing the rate of remuneration; they are placed in a different category to other civil servants, who are supposed to give the whole of their time, energies and capacities to the service of the State. I can quite understand why the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, who is a member of the legal profession, and other lawyers in this House are favourable to this Measure. They see in it not only preference and favour, hut also that there are going to be few unemployed in the legal profession in the years to come because of the work which will have to be done in the Courts.
This Bill not only protects the blackleg but is an endeavour to deal with any unemployment which may exist in the legal profession at the present time. The hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) was very unctuous when he was telling us of the loyal servants in the Post Office. Everyone who agrees with the hon. Member for Moss Side is a loyalist, and everyone who disagrees with him is disloyal. Those individuals who are running to him with information, behind the back of their fellow-members, are not the type which can be trusted for a moment. Why are the Government treating the Civil Service differently to the men in the Army, the Navy and Air Service? Why are they restricting civil servants in their association with trade unions, and not restricting the soldier, the sailor, and the airman? They have their various unions throughout the country. They are members of trade unions affiliated to the Trade Union Congress and the Labour party, many of them with 20 and 30 years' membership. I suppose the Government are not afraid of the soldier, sailor and airman associating with his fellows outside, but it is a strange notion on the part of the Government that they should place civil servants in quite a different category to that of the fighting Services.
A great deal has been said about the general stoppage of last year. Those who are making use of that particular instance, as a justification for this Clause, are stretching the point a very great deal. I look upon it as being hypocritical to suggest that that is the reason for dealing with the Civil Service. The fact of the matter is that the representatives of the Treasury, who may be within hearing at the moment, know full well that the association of the Civil Service with other trade unions, with those who can voice their opinions and demands, who can put a great deal more, pressure on the Government and Government Departments, has had the effect of doing something to the advantage of the Civil Service. That is the reason for this Clause. I am surprised that the Government has stopped where it has, and that it has not decided that civil servants must not receive letters of the kind to which the hon. Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has referred. Why do you not suggest that people who join the Civil Service should
be placed in barracks and kept segregated from the rest of the community? If by association with the rest of their fellows they are going to be dangerous to the State, do not let them associate with us at all. This Clause is a discredit and a disgrace. It is restrictive of any opportunity to organise in order to secure better conditions for the people in the War Office, the Admiralty, and the other Government Departments. It prevents real organisation, and I hope the civil servants, many of whom I know, are going to be real men and women and fight this even after it is on the Statute Book.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I should not have intervened at this point but for certain statements that have been made. Previous speakers have alluded to a meeting held upstairs, and I should like to say that when this Bill was first introduced deputations of civil servants from my own constituency asked if they might see me. I interviewed them. They told me their views. I pointed out that this Clauses hinges first and last on the public interest, and on that alone. They put their case with ability, reasonably, and with considerable zeal. I told them that I would hear both sides, and I have endeavoured to do so. I went to the meeting upstairs alluded to by previous speakers, and I listened to the remarks of Mr. Brown and Mr. Bowen, and, having heard what they had to say, I was absolutely convinced, not only that this Clause was desirable, but that it was absolutely imperative it should be introduced in the public interest.
Let me amplify that point. Mr. Brown and Mr. Bowen seemed to think that Parliament should be prostituted by the appointment by sectional interests of Parliamentary representatives. When Parliament consists of an aggregation of sectional interests, disregarding national interests, it will be an evil day for Parliament. For one particular section of the community to appoint Members nominally to look after the interests of the civil servants, and whilst they are looking after the interests of the civil servants they deal freely with those subjects which the Civil Service has to treat with in its ordinary day's work, it may be China, the Army, the Navy, and the Reserve Forces, is utterly improper. I conceive that nothing could be worse
than allowing things to drag on as they have dragged on hitherto. The ancient traditions of the Civil Service must be preserved. Under recent organisations and manœuvres, of the card vote in particular, a great deal has been thrown away. This Bill, and particularly this Clause, I trust, will restore some measure of security to the civil servant in his employment. With regard to the question of wages and conditions, I fail to see how the Clause will in any way affect the future of civil servants. The last speaker alluded to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Surely he knows that neither the Army nor the Navy nor the Air Force has any political voice. Individuals can vote at elections and do vote at elections.

Mr. KELLY: I did not say that they had a political voice. I said that they had membership, that there were serving members in the Army and the Navy and the Air Force who were members of active trade unions in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I should say that, the exceptions quoted by the hon. Member are excessively rare, and that the serving soldier, the serving sailor and the serving airman do not belong to the unions to which the hon. Member alludes. You may find people in the Government workshops, in the Air Force factories at Farnborough, in the rifle factory at Enfield Lock, and so on, who are members, but I repeat that the serving soldier, sailor or airman is not a member of a trade union. Long may that continue to be! In these circumstances I shall do all I can to support the passage of this Clause.

Mr. MOSLEY: We understand from the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, that with a perfectly open mind on this question he went to a meeting in a Committee room upstairs, and was convinced by Messrs. Brown and Bowen, quite against his natural inclination, to support the Government of the day.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Messrs. Brown and Bowen saw fit to threaten. Perhaps they might not threaten openly. Our thoughts were given to us to be expressed in words, sometimes freely, sometimes to veil, and sometimes to conceal. The veil was torn and that was sufficient.

Mr. MOSLEY: The veil was torn, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the first, time in his life saw the light, and decided to vote Conservative. It is a most remarkable performance by Messrs. Brown and Bowen, in converting the hon. and gallant Gentleman to vote for the Government of the day. They performed a most remarkable feat. I am sorry if my few observations have caused any discomfort to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as I see he is leaving the House. Let me now turn to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), who, I understand, is the only begetter of this Bill. Surely he does not disclaim that proud title? He informed us that he was quite convinced that the civil servants were not against this Measure, because at a meeting organised by the Union of Post Office Workers, to which he was invited, he found only some 20 people present. To me that proves only one thing, that even an organisation so powerful as the Union of Post Office Workers cannot succeed in securing an audience for the hon. and learned Member in his own Division.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I said there were about 70 present. The hon. Member does scant justice to the Members of his own party. The nephew of an hon. Member opposite—I forget his constituency—who is associated with a ginger weekly paper, was the chief speaker at the meeting.

Mr. MOSLEY: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member was only a secondary speaker at that meeting, and I am sorry if I underrated his drawing power if actually he secured an audience not of 20 but of 70 in his own Division. But really the size of his audience on that occasion is no very clear indication of the amount of feeling in the Civil Service on the subject. If the hon. and learned Member wants to see meetings against this Bill, he ought to accompany hon. Members from these benches to some parts of the country, Where he will see audiences nearer 20,000 than 20 in some places.

Mr. ALBERY: You are much funnier.

Mr. MOSLEY: No doubt the hon. Member who interrupts will take advantage of this offer, and I am sure, he will be enlightened and will entertain an audience in ways which he perhaps does
not expect. Then the hon. and learned Member for Norwood went on to say that he had held public meetings in his own Division, political meetings presumably, such as in the ordinary way every Member of Parliament or candidate holds in his own Division, and he stated that no civil servants turned up at these meetings to make a protest.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I said that the civil servants who were present, and a great many were, when given the opportunity evinced no opposition to this Bill but in fact evinced support of it.

Mr. MOSLEY: According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if at a public political meeting they supported a political Measure they were guilty, under the existing law, of a most improper act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us of that fact on the Committee stage of this very Clause. When the hon. and learned Member for Norwood suggests that civil servants should get up at his public meetings and make violent protests against this Bill, he must know that they would be liable to dismissal under the existing law for doing anything of the kind. The civil servant is not permitted to take part in political demonstrations, and a man who was thrown out for disorderly interruption during a meeting of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood, would have very scant chance of remaining a member of the Civil Service. I once sat for a Division which held a great many civil servants, and I noticed that they never were able without impunity to take part in political affairs, unless they were members of the Conservative party and the Conservative party happened to be in power at that time. Perhaps that was merely a personal experience.
Let me turn to the rather more germane observations—but still not altogether germane, because they were made by a member of the Conservative party—of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) He came to the very heart of the Debate upon this Clause in raising again that specific instance in his support, the old question of divided allegiance. The hon. and learned Member quoted a circular sent by the Union of Post Office Workers to its members at the time of the general strike. In that circular, in the words of the hon. and
learned Member, a statement was made that the organisation had pledged loyalty to the Trades Union Council, and he took that to mean that they had pledged their loyalty to the Trades Union Council in some action that was disloyal to the State. As I understand it, it was nothing of the kind. They renewed their pledge of loyalty to their obligation to the Trades Union Council, and that obligation was in no way in conflict with their obligations to the State. Their obligation to the Trades Union Council was not to come out on strike against the State, and in fact they did not come out on strike against the State—nothing of the kind.
Here we have two obligations in the divided allegiance of which the hon. and learned Member talked—obligations which are in no way conflicting. Their obligation to the State is to perform the duties which they were engaged to perform—no more and no less. Their obligation to the Trade Union Congress was not to perform any duty other than those which they were engaged to perform. Where is the conflict? Their loyalty to the Trade Union Congress was in not accepting blackleg jobs outside the work which they were engaged to perform and which they pledged themselves to the State to perform in accepting that employment. That was their obligation to the Trade Union Congress, and that in no way conflicts with the loyal discharge of the duties which they were engaged by the State to perform, and which they did in fact perform. This question of divided allegiance at no point arises. There is nothing in the relationship between the Trade Union Congress and the Civil Service organisations which can call upon those organisations to violate their obligations or their duty to the State, and, at no time, on no occasion, has the Trade Union Congress called upon the Civil Service organisations to undertake any such action whatever.
When the hon. and learned Member says that by these organisations the loyalty of the Civil Service is being undermined and sapped, he knows perfectly well, he must surely realise, that he is making a statement which is preposterous. What indication, what proof, is there of that undermining and sapping? Every time, on every occasion on which it has been put to the test, it has
been proved up to the hilt that the loyalty of the Civil Service to the State is maintained at as high a rate as it ever stood at in the history of this country and, in fact, throughout the discussions on this Clause, we have had both from the Front Bench and the back Benches opposite, the most fulsome praise of the loyalty and integrity of the Civil Service. Surely, before the hon. and learned Member and his friends place this stigma upon the Civil Service they should demonstrate wherein their confidence in the Civil Service has been forfeited. They can produce no case, no instance of any kind, to support the charge that these organisations have, in any way, undermined the loyalty of the Civil Service or prevented the discharge of the duties of civil servants to the State.
10.0 p.m.
Even if it were proved that some degree of divided allegiance did arise in this matter, is that anything very remarkable in this country? It is true that if divided allegiance did arise—which I deny—a logical case might be made out for this Clause. But the whole British Constitution exists on the very reverse of this proposal and some of the highest officers of State demonstrate in their own persons the possibility of divided allegiance. Chief among these living demonstrations of this possibility is the Attorney-General who speaks here for the Government. The Attorney-General has two quite distinct functions—the political partisan and the judicial interpreter of the action which the State will take in every kind of civil and criminal matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman often has to decide, in his legal and judicial capacity, whether he will prosecute a political opponent and he is supposed to take that action, not as a politician, not as a partisan, but as a Judge, fairly and properly interpreting the law. A still more striking example of divided allegiance of that kind, is the office of Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor may be a most violent political partisan. Lord Birkenhead was once Lord Chancellor and he moved with freedom from the public platform, where he might have made a violent political speech, to the Bench in the highest Court of the land where he administered justice as a Judge. There, again, a complete division of allegiance arises, but it has always been held
in this country and under our Constitution that it is possible for an honourable man to divorce his politics from his honourable obligations and his public duty towards the State in another function and in another capacity. That division of allegiance has been held possible in £10,000 a year jobs, why then is it impossible in £3 a week jobs?
This discrimination can be defended on no constitutional grounds and on no grounds of equity. These anomalies already exist in our Constitution and this proposal can only be defended on grounds of class distinction and discrimination. Do hon. Members opposite really wish to introduce principles of this character into their treatment of the Civil Service? Civil servants are already denied a great many of the liberties, and even of the human pleasures, of ordinary people. To a certain extent one always imagines as written over the portals of the Civil Service, "Abandon most human feeling all ye who enter here." But if you go beyond that, if you not only deny them the ordinary right of humanity to participate actively in the political affairs which concern their native land, but say that they may not have economic contact with similar categories of workers, you are in danger of overstepping the bounds of fair treatment. We cannot escape the fact that in practically every wage dispute affecting the Civil Service, the wages of similar workers, outside the Civil Service, are quoted against civil servants, and the wages of outside workers in similar employment, if they are low, are a millstone round the neck of the Civil Service in their struggle for higher positions.
For the hon. and learned Member for Norwood to state that they can rely upon public opinion to secure redress of their grievances is stretching the matter rather far. When and where has public opinion ever intervened in favour of raising the industrial conditions, if the working class had not industrial organisation? When and where has it ever happened? In the first place, unless you have a vocal and powerful organisation, public opinion cannot be informed as to the merits of the dispute. How can public opinion even begin to operate or function when the entire Press of the land is in the hands of the enemy? There is not
the slightest chance of public opinion in tervening to redress the conditions of the Civil Service unless you have organisation and unless pressure is exerted to inform public opinion as to the wrongs and the evils from which the Civil Service may be suffering. If you segregate your civil servants and deny them the legitimate expression of their grievances, then you are aggravating that risk which runs throughout this Measure of driving discontent underground into subversive and improper channels. There are many countries where this right of association with similar bodies of workers has been denied to the Civil Service, and I have yet to learn that, in those countries, Governments have received a better or more loyal service than the Government of this country.
Some years ago that right was denied in America and America's example has been held up in this Debate as an example to be avoided by this country. In America, and in similar countries, legitimate rights have been denied to the Civil Service. Grievances have been forced underground. Standards have been forced down to a ridiculous extent compared with the wealth of the community and then, at once, with a discontented Civil Service, with a Civil Service labouring under a sense of grievance, you have the temptation to adopt precisely that system which, at all costs, we want to avoid in this country, and which we have so triumphantly avoided throughout the ages. In place of a Clause like this, a mean and restrictive Clause upon the activities of a body of men to whom this country owes so much, I would ask the Government of the day to give the Civil Service that trust and that confidence which they deserve, and to recollect well that no man who cannot trust is ever well served.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has attempted to draw an analogy upon the matter which is now before the House. He has endeavoured to show that certain high officers of the State, although they owe full allegiance to the State, at the same time act in such a manner that there may be some sort of dual allegiance. I entirely fail to follow him in that. He has overlooked this one fundamental fact, that while indeed there may be
some difference between the different functions which high officers of State are called upon to perform, in fact they have never yet held office in a manner which may be regarded as being in opposition to the Government of the day. When he falls back upon the argument that the Civil Service in the last emergency was loyal to the best interest of the State, he entirely forgets what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) referred to. The circular to which he drew attention was issued by certain officials of the organisation, and it was certainly not the fault of the officials of the organisation, or the circular they issued, that in fact the main body of civil servants were loyal to the State, and fulfilled their duty loyally to the State in spite of the efforts made to seduce them from that loyalty. It is when facts which are beyond dispute are distorted in the manner in which they were just now by the hon. Gentleman that one realises how subtle and how mischievous are the influences to which the servants of the community are liable to be subjected, and why it is necessary that this Clause should stand part of the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not propose this evening to re-discuss the general merits of the Clause. It has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee already, but I do propose to answer one or two of the points which have been raised by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) began by saying that he agreed with me that all that is being done by this Clause could quite well have been effected by regulation without coming to Parliament. So far, we find ourselves in agreement, but he drew what, I think, was a most remarkable deduction from that premise, then he said that that fact proved that the Government were vindictive to the Civil Service. What is really true is that, having the power to act by ourselves without reference to Parliament, we thought it right, before embarking upon this policy, to submit it to the judgment of the House of Commons, and I have no doubt, having regard to what has already happened in the Committee stage of this Bill, as to what that judgment will be. The hon. Member went on to say that this Clause had no relation to the events of last year. I think that that
suggestion has been very amply and very completely answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Moss-side Division of Manchester (Mr. G. Hurst), when he read out the actual circulars isued by various Civil Service organisations at that time. When the hon. Member for North Camberwell so anxiously disclaims having done anything on the side of the strikers during that strike, he is adopting a very different attitude from that which he and his organ adopted in 1926, because I have in my hand the issue of the "Post," which, I understand, is their official newspaper, dated the 22nd May, 1926, in which they reveal their various activities and the writer winds up:
We were not directly involved in the strike, but I am sure that the Union of Post Office Workers rendered good service to the common cause.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman prefers the attitude of saying that they took no part at all in, and had nothing to do with, the strike, or whether he prefers the position which he took up twelve months ago, before the Bill, which his action and the action of those associated with him twelve months ago has directly brought about, when they boasted of the good service which trey rendered to the common cause.

Mr. AMMON: Feeding women and children.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is what the article says. It gives a long list of activities, and I see that one immediately above the passage I quoted is the part allotted by the General Council to Mr. Bowen in having, with Mr. E. L. Poulton, to look after the Press and publicity. I could find a number of others, but, at any rate, feeding the Press is not quite the same thing as feeding women and children. Certain questions have been put by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell said that this Clause might at least have left out of its scope the unestablished men, and he went on to paint a lurid picture of how, if the mines and the railways were nationalised, every miner and every railwayman would come within the scope of the Clause. He demanded to know whether it was the fact that everybody employed by the British Broadcasting Company was not affected by the Clause. The hon. Gentleman
surely knows, because he at least has read the Bill, that this Bill has no relation at all to people as long as they are unestablished workers.

Mr. AMMON: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman on this point. I well remember what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us a little while ago, in dealing with the case of unestablished workers in reply to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member seems to be confusing two wholly different things. The question was raised as to the condition under which unestablished men, when they became established, might retain their membership of trade unions. That has nothing in the wide world to do with the question whether unestablished men who have not become established are within or without the Clause. If hon. Members opposite really have not yet found out that the Bill deals with established persons only, it accounts for a good many of the misrepresentations that have been put out. The very third line of the Clause refers to the Regulations as to the conditions of service in His Majesty's civil establishments, and states that
there shall be included Regulations prohibiting established civil servants from being members, delegates, or representatives,
and so on. Surely the hon. Member opposite at least has read the first three lines of the Clause.

Mr. AMMON: If the right hon. Gentleman will read Sub-section (3, a), he will see that it uses the words "preliminary to establishment." That is an unestablished person.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will read it:
The expression 'established civil servant' means a person serving in an established capacity in the permanent service of the Crown, and includes any person who, having been granted a certificato by the Civil Service Commissioners, is serving a probationary period preliminary to establishment.
Surely the hon. Gentleman, who has been acquainted with the Civil Service for as many years as I have been at the Bar, I suppose, does not imagine that every unestablished man who is a civil servant is a person who is serving a probationary period preliminary to establishment
after the grant of a certificate. This relates to those who have passed the necessary examinations, who have net yet got on to the establishment, but are serving the necessary probationary period, and to say that because these persons are included there is ground for supposing that all unestablished men are within a Clause which deals only with established men seems to be a misconception of which I did not think even the hon. Gentleman and those on the opposite side of the House could really have been guilty. No wonder we get the misrepresentations in regard to this Clause which I find in the only paragraph relating to it in the little pamphlet which I had the pleasure of reading to the House a day or two ago. It is in the same pamphlet, "Fettering the Workers," but a different part of it, and I would like to read the only paragraph which describes what this part of the. Bill does:
The Civil Service staff associations will not be allowed to circularise or approach M.P.'s, although Civil Service wages and conditions are decided by Parliament. This includes postal, dockyard, and other industrial workers, and would also include the mines and railways if they were taken over by the State.
This Clause has been read by most hon. Members in this House, and I challenge any hon. Member in this House to point out a single word in this Clause which has anything whatever to do with the right of any association to circularise or approach a Member of Parliament, yet that is put out in this pamphlet as being the effect of the present Bill. It is an untruth. It is what the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clones) would prefer to describe as mendacity, and What I would like to call, on the part of whoever issues this pamphlet, a deliberate mendacity designed to mislead. I pass to other matters. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) raised a question which it is desirable to get cleared up. He suggested that under this Bill the retired civil servant would, equally with the actual civil servant, be prohibited from becoming a member of any outside organisation.

Mr. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that the proposed Regulations are already in existence?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If it be a fact—I do not think it is—that makes
the statement even more untrue, because, if they are already in existence, how false it is to suggest that they are brought into existence by the Bill. I was answering a misconception which was raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, I think, when he suggested that the retired civil servant was affected by this Bill equally with other civil servants in the sense that, after retirement he remained unable to take part in outside organisations on pain, as I think he suggested, of forfeiting his pension. That, of course, is not the effect of the Bill. The statement which I think the hon. Member misunderstood was a statement made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) to the effect that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept the Amendment to give retired civil servants the right to remain full active members of Civil Service trade union organisations, which is, of coarse, an exactly opposite point from that which he gathered.
Then there was a suggestion—again I only mention it in order to get rid of it—made, I think, by the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne East (Mr. Connolly) that there was some ambiguity in Subsection (2), because the expression used was "the said" Regulations, and he did not know which Regulations were meant. If the House will look at the Bill they will see that it relates to Regulations as to the conditions of service and states that there shall be included Regulations which do certain things. Then there is a provision that the Regulations made in furtherance of the provisions of this Section shall not prevent certain things happening. Finally, there is a Regulation that if any established civil servant knowingly contravenes any of the provisions of "the said Regulations" he shall be disqualified from remaining a member of the Civil Service. Quite obviously, "the said Regulations" are the Regulations which are prescribed by the Bill and are to deal with matters to which the Bill refers. I do not think there is any possible ambiguity in the expression.
Some hon. Member asked me who decides whether a civil servant shall be dismissed. Quite obviously, before any civil servant is dismissed from the service of the Crown, the responsible head of the Department under which he is
serving has to be satisfied that he has committed an offence which justifies dismissal. That is the position now, and that will remain the position after this Bill becomes law. I think those were all the relevant questions which were put to me. As I have said, I do not desire to recapitulate the arguments in favour of the Clause, both because they have been stated in Committee and because they have been conclusively and convincingly stated by my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate, and because I think that from every reason of common sense, expediency and justice, it is right that the Civil Service should be set free from the shackles of political association.

Mr. CONNOLLY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us a definition of "permanent service, which was the third point I put to him?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The expression "established civil servant" is defined in Sub-section (3) (a) in exactly the same language as is used for the definition of the same phrase in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, I think, and one or two other Acts of Parliament. It is the recognised phrase for defining a person who is on the establishment, and I do not think anybody who is in the Civil Service has any doubt as to who is an established or unestablished man. We have used exactly the same language to define exactly the same thing.

Mr. TOWNEND: On the point of clarity following the explanation of the Attorney-General as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster), do we now understand that a retired civil servant is free to exercise his citizenship like any other member of the community, entirely eliminating the question of his connection with the Civil Service before his retirement?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly when he has retired, he ceases to be a member of the Civil Service, and he only enjoys rights which his previous service entitle him to enjoy.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken any steps to withdraw the 5,000,000 Conservative
pamphlets which, having regard to the alterations which have been made, are row wholly inaccurate?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know which particular pamphlets the hon. and gallant Member refers to, but may I say that the alterations which have been made in the Bill have been alterations designed in every case to ensure that the Bill carries out the four principles which were originally laid down. If in all the pamphlets those four principles have been expounded, then the alterations I have since made will make those pamphlets even more accurate.

Captain GARRO-JONES: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so satisfied with those pamphlets, will he take steps to see that they bear the imprint of the Conservative Association?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask if the hon. and gallant Member can speak again on this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have a liberty which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has not, because I have not addressed the House before on this question. As this subject has been raised particularly in reference to the Civil Service, will the Attorney-General make sure that in future all leaflets issued by the Conservative Association, for which he has some responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, do bear the imprint of the Conservative Association? I have had recent experience of some leaflets which I have strong reason to believe were printed by the Conservative Association, but which came from another party altogether, and they stated that I supported a party entirely at variance with the Conservative party.

Sir G. HOHLER: On a point of Order. I would like to ask if all this is relevant to the subject matter of the Bill before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the pamphlet referred to deals with Clause 5 of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am referring to one of the four points which the Attorney-General alluded to as being principles carried out by this Bill. I think it is only reasonable, as this
matter has been raised upon the Treasury Bench, that the Conservative organisation should, in common fairness, always put their name to any pamphlets they issue. They will then find that there will be no necessity to use terminological inexactitudes——

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the

Order of the House of the 16th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 38, stand part of the Bill,"

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 128

Division No. 197.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, C.
Jacob, A. E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Duckworth, John
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ellis, R. G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Elveden, Viscount
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Apsley, Lord
England, Colonel A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, J. Q.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Eric


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fielden, E. B.
Lougher, Lewis


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Finburgh, S.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Berry, Sir George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bethel, A.
Forrest, W.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foster, Sir Henry S.
Lumley, L. R.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Blundell, F. N.
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacDonald, R, (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ganzoni, Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gates, Percy
Macintyre, I.


Brass, Captain W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Briscoe, Richard George
Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Malone, Major P. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bullock, Captain M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Margesson, Capt. D.


Burman, J. B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Lieut. -Col. Glyn K.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grotrian, H. Brent
Meller, R. J.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Merriman, F. B.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cassels, J. D.
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell. Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hanbury, C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nelson Sir Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harland, A.
Neville', Sir Reginald J.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newton Sir D. G. C (Cambridge)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Haslam, Henry C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Clarry, Reginald George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Clayton, G. C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Owen, Major G.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hilton, Cecil
Pennefather, Sir John


Couper, J. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Penny, Frederick George


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Perkins Colonel E. K.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Perring, Sir William George


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Preston, William


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Radford, E. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Gerald B.
Raine, Sir Walter


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ramsden, E.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Remer, J. R.


Remnant, Sir James
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wiggins, William Martin


Rentoul, G. S.
Storry-Deans, R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Strauss, E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ropner, Major L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Rye, F. G
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Major I.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Withers, John James


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Womersley, W. J.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Savery, S. S.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Warrender, Sir Victor
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Watts, Dr. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.
Major Cope and Captain Lord


Smithers, Waldron
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Stanley.


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Half, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mosley, Oswald
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben



Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Whiteley.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 39, at the beginning, to insert the words,
any person who is at the commencement of this Act."—[The Attorney-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 263: Noes, 127

Division No. 198.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Finburgh, S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Ford, Sir P. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Albery, Irving James
Forrest, W.
Meller, R. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Merriman, F. B.


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Apsley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Balniel, Lord
Gates, Percy
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Berry, Sir George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oakley, T.


Bethel, A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Blundell, F. N.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, Major G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pennefather, Sir John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Perring, Sir William George


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hanbury, C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harland, A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C(Berks. Newb'y)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, William


Bullock, Captain M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Burman, J. B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Radford, E. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ran sden, E.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Caine, Gordon Hall
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Remer, J. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remnant, Sir James


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cassels, J. D.
Hilton, Cecil
Rhys, Hon C. A. U.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Ropner, Major L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurst, Gerald B.
Savory, S. S.


Clayton, G. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cent,)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Couper, J. B.
Jacob, A. E.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smithers, Waldron


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Storry-Deans, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Strauss, E. A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir I. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Crichton-,Lord C,


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Long, Major Eric
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lougher, Lewis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dixon, captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Duckworth, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Eivedon, Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


England, Colonel A.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macintyre, Ian
Watson, Rt. Hon. W, (Carlisle)


Evans, Capt. Ernest(Welsh Univer.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watts. Dr. T.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wells, S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple




Wiggins, William Martin
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wise, Sir Fredric
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Withers, John James
Young, Ht. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Womersley, W. J.



Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Major Cope and Captain Lord


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Stanley.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rnondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edge, Sir William
March S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxtor, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Mosley, Oswald
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson.

Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 7, at the end, to insert the words,
(b) any person employed at the commencement of this Act by or under the Crown who thereafter becomes an established civil servant from remaining, so long as he is not appointed to a position of supervision or management, a member of any trade union or organisation, not composed wholly or mainly of persons employed by or under the Crown, of which he is a member at the date when he so becomes an

established civil servant, if under the rules thereof there has at that date accrued, or begun to accrue, to him a right to any future payment during incapacity, or by way of superannuation, or on the death of himself or his wife, or as provision for his children: or."—[The Attorney-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 117.

Division No. 199.]
AYES.
[10. 50 p.m.,


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balniel, Lord
Blundell, F. N.


Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Boothby, R. J. G.


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Albery, Irving James
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brass, Captain W.


Apsley, Lord
Berry, Sir George
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bethel, A.
Briant, Frank


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Briscoe, Richard George


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pennefather, Sir John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hanbury, C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burman, J. B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harris, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butt, Sir Alfred
Haslam, Henry C.
Preston, William


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Campbell, E. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)
Raine, Sir Walter


Cassels, J. D.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Ramsden, E.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Remnant, Sir James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hilton, Cecil
Rentoul, G. S.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hohler Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chapman, Sir S.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Ropner, Major L.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rye, F. G.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Salmon, Major I.


Clayton, G. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Couper, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Jacob, A. E.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith Carington, Neville W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smithers, Waldron


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Davies, Maj, Geo, F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Storry-Deans, R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Strauss, E. A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lamb, J. Q.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duckworth, John
Loder, J. de V.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Eric
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lougher, Lewis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Ellis, R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, Trevelvan (Middlesbro. w.)


Elveden, Viscount
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


England, Colonel A.
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fenby, T. D.
Macintyre, Ian
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fermoy, Lord
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fielden, E. B.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watts, Dr. T.


Finburgh, S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wells, S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Forrest, W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wiggins, William Martin


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meller, R. J.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Goff, Sir Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Withers, John James


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Womersley, W. J.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Sir Kingsley(Woolwich W.)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf ld.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Oakley, T.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)



Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Owen, Major G.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mosley, Oswald
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben



Hall, F. (York., W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

CLAUSE 8,—(Short title, construction, interpretation, extent and repeal.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 1, leave out the word "In," and insert the words "For the purposes of."

In line 3, after the word "employed," insert the words" in any trade or industry."

In line 7, after the word "been," insert the word "so."—[The Attorney-General.]

Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words,

";and
(c) a strike or lock-out shall not be deemed to be calculated to coerce the Government unless such coercion ought reasonably to be expected as a consequence thereof."— [The Attorney-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 134.

Division No. 200.]
AYES.
[11. 1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cassels, J. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Blundell, F. N.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Albery, Irving James
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brass, Captain W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Apsley, Lord
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Chapman, Sir S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Balniel, Lord
Buckingham, Sir H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Bullock, Captain M.
Clarry, Reginald George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Clayton, G. C.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Butt. Sir Alfred
Cope, Major William


Berry, Sir George
Calne, Gordon Hall
Couper, J. B.


Bethel, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Carver, Major W. H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N).
Raine, Sir Walter


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ramsden, E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurst, Gerald B.
Remer, J. R


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remnant, Sir James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rentoul, G. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jacob, A. E.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ropner, Major L.


Drewe, C.
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duckworth, John
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rye, F. G.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Salmon, Major I.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Ellis, R. G.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Elveden, Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


England, Colonel A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Savery, S. S.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Loder, J. de V.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, Lewis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lowe Sir Francis William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fermoy, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Slnclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belfast)


Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Finburgh, S.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Forrest, W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Storry-Deans, R.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macintyre, Ian
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gates, Percy
McNeill, Rt, Hon. Ronald John
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir victor


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, F. B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grotrian, H. Brent
Meyer, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Watts, Dr. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells, S. R.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
White. Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wiggins, William Martin


Hanbury, C.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Williams, A, M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harland, A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oakley, T.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Haslam, Henry C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hawke, John Anthony
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wise, Sir Fredric


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Withers, John James


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Owen, Major G.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Pennefather, Sir John
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Hilton, Cecil
Perring, Sir William George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Holt, Captain H. P.
Power, Sir John Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Mr. F. C. Thompson and Captain


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, William
Bowyer.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Price, Major C. W. M.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Briant, Frank
Connolly, M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Broad, F. A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Ammon, Charles George
Bromfield, William
Crawfurd, H.E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bromley, J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Baker, Walter
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Day, Colonel Harry


Barnes, A.
Buchanan, G.
Dennison, R.


Batey, Joseph
Charleton, H.C.
Duncan, C.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Clowes, S.
Dunnico, H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Cluse, W. S.
Edge, Sir William




Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Fenby, T. D.
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Gardner, J. P.
Lawrence, Susan
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawson, John James
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.
Stamford, T.W.


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenall, T.
MacLaren, Andrew
Strauss, E.A.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D.R. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Taylor, R. A.


Groves, T.
March, S.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Grundy, T.W.
Maxton, James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mosley, Oswald
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.
Thorne W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T.E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Townend, A. E.


Harris, Percy A.
Palin, John Henry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pethick-Lawrence, F.W.
Varley, Frank B.


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.
Viant, S. P.


Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben
Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, G.H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hirst, W.(Bradford, South)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Ellano)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rose, Frank H.
Welsh, J. C.


Hudson, J.H. (Huddersfield)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Westwood, J.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scrymgeour, E.
Whlteley, W.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.
Windsor, Walter


Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



Kennedy, T.
Smillie, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Allan Parkinson and Mr. Charles




Edwards.

Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 18, at the end, to insert the words,
except that the provisions of this Act relating to civil servants shall apply to civil servants employed in Northern Ireland in the administration of services with respect to which the Parliament of Northern Ireland

land has not power to make laws."—[The Attorney-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 130.

Division No. 201.]
>AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Carver, Major W. H.
Ellis, R. G.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cassels, J. D.
Elveden, Viscount


Albery, Irving James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
England, Colonel A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Apsley, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Astbury. Lieut. -Commander F. W.
Ckamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Chapman, Sir S.
Fermoy, Lord


Balniel, Lord
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fielden, E. B.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Finburgh, S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Clarry, Reginald George
Forrest, W.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Clayton, G. C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bethel, A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colfox, Major William Phillips
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cope, Major William
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Blundell, F.N.
Couper, J. B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Boothby, R. J.G.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G.L.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gates, Percy


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Goff, Sir Park


Briscoe, Richard George
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J.H.
Greene, W.P. Crawford


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bullock, Captain M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Burman, J. B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristrol, N.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Drewe, C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Duckworth, John
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Savery, S. S.


Hanbury, C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Harland, A.
Malone, Major P. B.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Capt. D.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Haslam, Henry C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hawke, John Anthony
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Meller, R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Merriman, F. B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stanley. Lord (Fylde)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Storry-Deans, R.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Strauss, E. A.


Hilton, Cecil
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oakley, T.
Thomson, F.C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mltchell-


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on Hull)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Owen, Major G.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pennefather, Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Penny, Frederick George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Jacob, A. E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Jephcott, A. R
Perring, Sir William George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watts, Dr. T.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wells, S. R.


Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C.H.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Pownall, Sir Assheton
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Preston, William
Wiggins, William Martin


Knox, Sir Alfred
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lamb, J. Q.
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ramsden, E.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Loder, J. de V.
Remer, J. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Long, Major Eric
Remnant, Sir James
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lougher, Lewis
Rentoul, G. S.
Withers, John James


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Womersley, W. J.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Lumley, L. R.
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)


Lynn, Sir R.J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rye, F.G.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D.T.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Salmon, Major I.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sandeman, N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macintyre, Ian
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Captain Viscount Curzon and


Macmllian, Captain H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dennison, R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dunnico, H.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Ammon Charles George
Edge, Sir William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Baker J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd)


Baker, Walter
Fenby, T. D.
Kelly, W. T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gardner, J. P.
Kennedy, T.


Barnes A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M


Batey Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Kirkwood, D.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Gosling, Harry
Lansbury, George


Bondfield, Margaret
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawrence, Susan


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Greenall, T.
Lawson, John James


Briant, Frank
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lee, F.


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Bromfield, William
Groves, T.
Lunn, William


Bromley, J.
Grundy, T. W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Buchanan, G.
Hardle, George D.
March, S.


Charleton H. C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Maxton, James


Clowes, S.
Hayday, Arthur
Mosley, Oswald


Cluse W. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Murnin, H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Connolly, M.
Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold


Crawford H. E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry


Davies Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W


Day, Colonel Harry
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.




Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Varley, Frank B.


Riley, Ben
Snell, Harry
Viant, S. P.


Ritson, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Watson, W.M. (Dunfermline)


Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Stamford, T. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda.


Rose, Frank H.
Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wellock, Wilfred


Scrymgeour, E.
Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Sexton, James
Taylor, R. A.
Westwood, J.


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbrow)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sitch, Charles H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Smillie, Robert
Townend, A. E.



Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Re- pealed.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 24, column 3, at the beginning, insert the words "Sub-section (2) of Section four."—[The Attorney-General.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twentytwo Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.